4.5 Article

Uncontrolled Removal of Dentin during In Vitro Ultrasonic irrigant Activation

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 42, 期 2, 页码 289-293

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.09.017

关键词

Dentin; Irrisafe; K-file; micro-computed tomography; removal; ultrasonic activation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate uncontrolled removal of dentin during in vitro ultrasonic irrigant activation in prepared root canals using 2 different files. Methods: Fifty-four human single rooted teeth with straight root canals were prepared to size 35/.06 taper. The specimens were randomly allocated to 3 groups (n = 18). Two milliliters of 2% sodium hypochlorite was delivered 3 times to each root canal by a syringe and an open-ended needle. After each delivery, the irrigant was ultrasonically activated for 10 seconds at 35% power either by a size 15 ultrasonic K-file (group A) or a size 20 Irrisafe file (Acteon Satelec, Merignac, France) (group B) placed at 2 mm short of the working length. The irrigant in the control specimens (group C) was not activated. Specimens were scanned by micro computed tomographic imaging at 10-m voxel size before preparation, after preparation, and after the final irrigation/activation sequence. Scans were coregistered and segmented, and the amount of dentin removed during the final step was quantified by morphologic operations. Results were analyzed by nonparametric statistical tests. The level of significance was set to P < .05. Results: Defects with a maximum depth of 0.09 mm and 0.07 mm were identified in groups A and B, respectively. Both ultrasonic files removed significantly more dentin than irrigant delivery in the control group (P <= .005). K-files removed significantly more dentin than Irrisafe files in the apical third (P = .001). Conclusions: Ultrasonic irrigant activation may result in uncontrolled removal of dentin in straight root canals and at manufacturer-recommended power settings.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据