辅助灌洗方法对微创与常规根管制备的细菌生物膜感染的疗效观察。

IF 1.5 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Giuliana Soimu, Abhishek Parolia, Anelise V Masiero, Fang Qian, Thomas Moninger, Jeffrey A Banas, Fabricio B Teixeira
{"title":"辅助灌洗方法对微创与常规根管制备的细菌生物膜感染的疗效观察。","authors":"Giuliana Soimu, Abhishek Parolia, Anelise V Masiero, Fang Qian, Thomas Moninger, Jeffrey A Banas, Fabricio B Teixeira","doi":"10.1111/aej.70024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study evaluated the effectiveness of the GentleWave system (GWS), laser-activated irrigation (LAI), ultrasonic-activated irrigation (UAI) and sonic irrigation (SI) in removing a three-species biofilm from infected root canals prepared using minimally invasive techniques (MIT) and conventional instrumentation techniques (CIT). One hundred and ten single-canalled mandibular premolars were infected with the biofilm and assigned to five groups based on the supplementary irrigation method used. Biofilm removal was assessed using confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. In the CIT group, GWS resulted in a significantly higher proportion of dead cells compared to UAI and SI (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between GWS and LAI. In the MIT group, no significant differences were observed among the irrigation methods (p > 0.05). Although none of the approaches completely eliminated the biofilm, GWS and LAI were more effective than UAI and SI.</p>","PeriodicalId":55581,"journal":{"name":"Australian Endodontic Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Supplementary Irrigation Methods Against Bacterial Biofilm-Infected Root Canals Prepared With Minimally Invasive and Conventional Techniques.\",\"authors\":\"Giuliana Soimu, Abhishek Parolia, Anelise V Masiero, Fang Qian, Thomas Moninger, Jeffrey A Banas, Fabricio B Teixeira\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/aej.70024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study evaluated the effectiveness of the GentleWave system (GWS), laser-activated irrigation (LAI), ultrasonic-activated irrigation (UAI) and sonic irrigation (SI) in removing a three-species biofilm from infected root canals prepared using minimally invasive techniques (MIT) and conventional instrumentation techniques (CIT). One hundred and ten single-canalled mandibular premolars were infected with the biofilm and assigned to five groups based on the supplementary irrigation method used. Biofilm removal was assessed using confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. In the CIT group, GWS resulted in a significantly higher proportion of dead cells compared to UAI and SI (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between GWS and LAI. In the MIT group, no significant differences were observed among the irrigation methods (p > 0.05). Although none of the approaches completely eliminated the biofilm, GWS and LAI were more effective than UAI and SI.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55581,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Endodontic Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Endodontic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.70024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Endodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.70024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究评估了使用微创技术(MIT)和传统仪器技术(CIT)从感染根管中去除三种生物膜的效果,包括:GWS、激光激活灌洗(LAI)、超声激活灌洗(UAI)和声波灌洗(SI)。将110颗感染生物膜的单管下颌前磨牙按辅助灌洗法分为5组。采用共聚焦激光扫描显微镜和扫描电镜观察生物膜去除情况。在CIT组中,GWS导致的死细胞比例明显高于UAI和SI (p 0.05)。虽然没有一种方法完全消除生物膜,但GWS和LAI比UAI和SI更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Efficacy of Supplementary Irrigation Methods Against Bacterial Biofilm-Infected Root Canals Prepared With Minimally Invasive and Conventional Techniques.

This study evaluated the effectiveness of the GentleWave system (GWS), laser-activated irrigation (LAI), ultrasonic-activated irrigation (UAI) and sonic irrigation (SI) in removing a three-species biofilm from infected root canals prepared using minimally invasive techniques (MIT) and conventional instrumentation techniques (CIT). One hundred and ten single-canalled mandibular premolars were infected with the biofilm and assigned to five groups based on the supplementary irrigation method used. Biofilm removal was assessed using confocal laser scanning microscopy and scanning electron microscopy. In the CIT group, GWS resulted in a significantly higher proportion of dead cells compared to UAI and SI (p < 0.05), with no significant difference between GWS and LAI. In the MIT group, no significant differences were observed among the irrigation methods (p > 0.05). Although none of the approaches completely eliminated the biofilm, GWS and LAI were more effective than UAI and SI.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Australian Endodontic Journal
Australian Endodontic Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
6.20%
发文量
99
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Australian Endodontic Journal provides a forum for communication in the different fields that encompass endodontics for all specialists and dentists with an interest in the morphology, physiology, and pathology of the human tooth, in particular the dental pulp, root and peri-radicular tissues. The Journal features regular clinical updates, research reports and case reports from authors worldwide, and also publishes meeting abstracts, society news and historical endodontic glimpses. The Australian Endodontic Journal is a publication for dentists in general and specialist practice devoted solely to endodontics. It aims to promote communication in the different fields that encompass endodontics for those dentists who have a special interest in endodontics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信