不同技术用于根管再治疗的疗效

Lamiaa A. Ibrahim , Ahmed M. Negm , Mohamed M. Kataia
{"title":"不同技术用于根管再治疗的疗效","authors":"Lamiaa A. Ibrahim ,&nbsp;Ahmed M. Negm ,&nbsp;Mohamed M. Kataia","doi":"10.1016/j.fdj.2018.04.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This study compared the efficacy of gutta percha and sealer removal during retreatment using Protaper universal retreatment rotary files, D-Race rotary files and hand files with Gates Glidden.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty six extracted single rooted teeth were selected for the current study. The canals were prepared using a modified crown-down technique then filled using the lateral compaction technique. Specimens were randomly divided into 3 equal groups each consisted of twelve specimens. Group one used manual files, group 2 used D-Race system while group 3 used Protaper retreatment system. Samples were split longitudinally and examined under the stereomicroscope.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>No significant differences among the Protaper and the D-RaCe groups in the mean values of root canal filling remnants, whereas the hand files and Gates Glidden group differed significantly.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>D-Race and Protaper retreatment files removed gutta percha and sealer more efficiently than hand files and Gates Glidden.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100562,"journal":{"name":"Future Dental Journal","volume":"4 2","pages":"Pages 170-174"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.fdj.2018.04.004","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of different techniques used for root canal retreatment\",\"authors\":\"Lamiaa A. Ibrahim ,&nbsp;Ahmed M. Negm ,&nbsp;Mohamed M. Kataia\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.fdj.2018.04.004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Aim</h3><p>This study compared the efficacy of gutta percha and sealer removal during retreatment using Protaper universal retreatment rotary files, D-Race rotary files and hand files with Gates Glidden.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>Thirty six extracted single rooted teeth were selected for the current study. The canals were prepared using a modified crown-down technique then filled using the lateral compaction technique. Specimens were randomly divided into 3 equal groups each consisted of twelve specimens. Group one used manual files, group 2 used D-Race system while group 3 used Protaper retreatment system. Samples were split longitudinally and examined under the stereomicroscope.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>No significant differences among the Protaper and the D-RaCe groups in the mean values of root canal filling remnants, whereas the hand files and Gates Glidden group differed significantly.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>D-Race and Protaper retreatment files removed gutta percha and sealer more efficiently than hand files and Gates Glidden.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100562,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Future Dental Journal\",\"volume\":\"4 2\",\"pages\":\"Pages 170-174\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1016/j.fdj.2018.04.004\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Future Dental Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2314718018300296\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2314718018300296","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

目的比较Protaper通用再治疗旋转锉、D-Race旋转锉和Gates Glidden手锉在再治疗中去除杜胶和封口剂的效果。方法选择36颗拔除的单根牙进行研究。使用改良的冠压技术制备管,然后使用侧压实技术填充管。样本随机分为3组,每组12个样本。1组采用手工锉,2组采用D-Race系统,3组采用Protaper再处理系统。纵向切开标本,在体视显微镜下观察。结果Protaper组和D-RaCe组的根管充填残留物均值差异无统计学意义,而手锉组和Gates Glidden组差异有统计学意义。结论d - race锉和Protaper锉比手工锉和Gates Glidden锉能更有效地去除杜胶和封口剂。
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 different techniques used for root canal retreatment

Aim

This study compared the efficacy of gutta percha and sealer removal during retreatment using Protaper universal retreatment rotary files, D-Race rotary files and hand files with Gates Glidden.

Methods

Thirty six extracted single rooted teeth were selected for the current study. The canals were prepared using a modified crown-down technique then filled using the lateral compaction technique. Specimens were randomly divided into 3 equal groups each consisted of twelve specimens. Group one used manual files, group 2 used D-Race system while group 3 used Protaper retreatment system. Samples were split longitudinally and examined under the stereomicroscope.

Results

No significant differences among the Protaper and the D-RaCe groups in the mean values of root canal filling remnants, whereas the hand files and Gates Glidden group differed significantly.

Conclusion

D-Race and Protaper retreatment files removed gutta percha and sealer more efficiently than hand files and Gates Glidden.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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