4.0 Article

pH changes in radicular dentine associated with calcium hydroxide and corticosteroid/antibiotic pastes

期刊

AUSTRALIAN ENDODONTIC JOURNAL
卷 49, 期 -, 页码 273-279

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/aej.12280

关键词

calcium hydroxide; diffusion; hydroxyl ion; Ledermix paste; medicaments; root canal treatment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to compare the diffusion of hydroxyl ions through dentine after the placement of calcium hydroxide and Ledermix paste. Results showed that the time to maximum pH in the inner dentine was 1 week for Pulpdent and 2 weeks for Pulpdent/Ledermix, while the time to maximum pH in the outer dentine was 4 weeks for Pulpdent and 10 weeks for Pulpdent/Ledermix. Pulpdent had higher pH in both inner and outer dentine compared to Ledermix and controls, while Pulpdent/Ledermix had significantly higher pH than controls and Ledermix from day 5 until 10 months, after which the outer dentine pH decreased and became similar to the other groups. pH reduction was observed in all groups after 3 months.
The aim was to compare hydroxyl ion diffusion through dentine following placement of calcium hydroxide and Ledermix paste. Thirty-six teeth were divided into one control (n = 6) and three experimental (n = 10) groups - (i) Pulpdent paste; (ii) Pulpdent/Ledermix pastes; (iii) Ledermix paste and (iv) Saline. pH was measured in inner and outer dentine cavities over 12 months. Inner dentine time to maximum pH (Tmax) was 1 week for Pulpdent and 2 weeks for Pulpdent/Ledermix. Pulpdent's outer dentine Tmax was 4 weeks and Pulpdent/Ledermix was 10 weeks. After day 1, Pulpdent pH was higher and this continued for 12 months. Pulpdent's outer dentine pH was higher than Ledermix and controls, but not significantly different from Pulpdent/Ledermix. Pulpdent/Ledermix had significantly higher pH than controls and Ledermix from day 5 until 10 months when Pulpdent/Ledermix outer dentine pH decreased and became similar. In all groups, pH reduced after 3 months.

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

4.0
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