三种树脂基根管封闭剂物理性能的比较:体外研究。

Q3 Dentistry
Frontiers in Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-09-19 eCollection Date: 2023-01-01 DOI:10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651
Pegah Sarraf, Sholeh Ghabraei, Zahra Mohammadi, Faranak Noori, Nazanin Chitsaz
{"title":"三种树脂基根管封闭剂物理性能的比较:体外研究。","authors":"Pegah Sarraf,&nbsp;Sholeh Ghabraei,&nbsp;Zahra Mohammadi,&nbsp;Faranak Noori,&nbsp;Nazanin Chitsaz","doi":"10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the physical properties of three resin-based root canal sealers, including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Flowability, film-thickness, solubility, and radiopacity of BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal sealers were evaluated according to ISO 6876/2012 specifications. Three samples of each sealer were used to test each of the properties. <b>Results:</b> The results revealed that the flow rate (mm) of BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 were 23.06±1.58, 22.5±4.23, and 21.85±1.71, respectively. Film-thickness values (µm) for BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 sealers were 52.33±2.51, 18.66±0.57, and 52±2, respectively. No significant difference was observed regarding film-thickness between AH26 and BETA-RCS (P>0.05), while Adseal showed significantly lower film-thickness (P˂0.05). The highest and lowest solubility were related to BETA-RCS and Adseal, respectively. However, all sealers had acceptable solubility and radiopacity. <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings of the current study suggested that all three root canal sealers including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal had similar properties based on ISO 6876 standard criteria. As such, they could be viable choices for facilitating effective root canal procedures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted to assess their performance and success rates in actual endodontic cases.</p>","PeriodicalId":12445,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Dentistry","volume":"20 ","pages":"34"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/71/f1/FID-20-34.PMC10591020.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of the Physical Properties of Three Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers: An In-Vitro Study.\",\"authors\":\"Pegah Sarraf,&nbsp;Sholeh Ghabraei,&nbsp;Zahra Mohammadi,&nbsp;Faranak Noori,&nbsp;Nazanin Chitsaz\",\"doi\":\"10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objectives:</b> This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the physical properties of three resin-based root canal sealers, including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal. <b>Materials and Methods:</b> Flowability, film-thickness, solubility, and radiopacity of BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal sealers were evaluated according to ISO 6876/2012 specifications. Three samples of each sealer were used to test each of the properties. <b>Results:</b> The results revealed that the flow rate (mm) of BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 were 23.06±1.58, 22.5±4.23, and 21.85±1.71, respectively. Film-thickness values (µm) for BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 sealers were 52.33±2.51, 18.66±0.57, and 52±2, respectively. No significant difference was observed regarding film-thickness between AH26 and BETA-RCS (P>0.05), while Adseal showed significantly lower film-thickness (P˂0.05). The highest and lowest solubility were related to BETA-RCS and Adseal, respectively. However, all sealers had acceptable solubility and radiopacity. <b>Conclusion:</b> The findings of the current study suggested that all three root canal sealers including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal had similar properties based on ISO 6876 standard criteria. As such, they could be viable choices for facilitating effective root canal procedures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted to assess their performance and success rates in actual endodontic cases.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12445,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"20 \",\"pages\":\"34\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/71/f1/FID-20-34.PMC10591020.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v20i34.13651","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本体外研究旨在评估三种树脂基根管封闭剂的物理性能,包括BETA-RCS、AH26和Adseal。材料和方法:根据ISO 6876/2012规范评估BETA-RCS、AH26和Adseal密封剂的流动性、膜厚度、溶解度和辐射不透性。使用每种密封剂的三个样品来测试每种性能。结果:结果显示,BETA-RCS、Adseal和AH26的流速(mm)分别为23.06±1.58、22.5±4.23和21.85±1.71。BETA-RCS、Adseal和AH26密封剂的膜厚度值(µm)分别为52.33±2.51、18.66±0.57和52±2。AH26和BETA-RCS之间的膜厚度没有显著差异(P>0.05),而Adseal的膜厚度明显较低(P<0.05)。最高和最低溶解度分别与BETA-RCS和Adseal有关。然而,所有密封剂都具有可接受的溶解性和不透射线性。结论:本研究结果表明,根据ISO 6876标准,包括BETA-RCS、AH26和Adseal在内的三种根管封闭剂具有相似的性能。因此,它们可能是促进有效根管手术的可行选择。需要进一步的长期临床研究来评估它们在实际牙髓病病例中的表现和成功率。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Comparison of the Physical Properties of Three Resin-Based Root Canal Sealers: An In-Vitro Study.

Objectives: This in-vitro study aimed to evaluate the physical properties of three resin-based root canal sealers, including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal. Materials and Methods: Flowability, film-thickness, solubility, and radiopacity of BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal sealers were evaluated according to ISO 6876/2012 specifications. Three samples of each sealer were used to test each of the properties. Results: The results revealed that the flow rate (mm) of BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 were 23.06±1.58, 22.5±4.23, and 21.85±1.71, respectively. Film-thickness values (µm) for BETA-RCS, Adseal, and AH26 sealers were 52.33±2.51, 18.66±0.57, and 52±2, respectively. No significant difference was observed regarding film-thickness between AH26 and BETA-RCS (P>0.05), while Adseal showed significantly lower film-thickness (P˂0.05). The highest and lowest solubility were related to BETA-RCS and Adseal, respectively. However, all sealers had acceptable solubility and radiopacity. Conclusion: The findings of the current study suggested that all three root canal sealers including BETA-RCS, AH26, and Adseal had similar properties based on ISO 6876 standard criteria. As such, they could be viable choices for facilitating effective root canal procedures. Further long-term clinical studies are warranted to assess their performance and success rates in actual endodontic cases.

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
Frontiers in Dentistry
Frontiers in Dentistry Dentistry-General Dentistry
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信