{"title":"gentwave系统在根管治疗中的效果:一个叙述性的回顾","authors":"H. Coaguila-Llerena, Eduarda Gaeta, G. Faria","doi":"10.5395/rde.2022.47.e11","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study aimed to describe the outcomes of the GentleWave system (GW) (Sonendo) on root canal treatment. Published articles were collected from scientific databases (MEDLINE/PubMed platform, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct and Embase). A total of 24 studies were collected from August/2014 to July/2021, 20 in vitro and 4 clinical. GW System was not associated with extrusion of the irrigant, promoted faster organic dissolution than conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI) and EndoVac, reduced more bacterial DNA and biofilm than PUI and CUI, promoted higher penetration of sodium hypochlorite into dentinal tubules than PUI and CUI in vitro, and removed more intracanal medication than CSI and PUI. GW was able to remove pulp tissue and calcifications. Moreover, its ability to remove hard-tissue debris and smear layer was better than that of CSI, and its ability to remove root canal obturation residues was lower or similar to that of PUI, and similar to that of CSI and EndoVac. Regarding root canal obturation of minimally instrumented molar canals, GW was associated with high-quality obturation. Clinically, the success rate of endodontic treatment using GW was 97.3%, and the short-term postoperative pain in the GW group was not different from CSI. Further research, mainly clinical, is needed to establish whether GW has any advantages over other available irrigation methods.","PeriodicalId":21102,"journal":{"name":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outcomes of the GentleWave system on root canal treatment: a narrative review\",\"authors\":\"H. Coaguila-Llerena, Eduarda Gaeta, G. Faria\",\"doi\":\"10.5395/rde.2022.47.e11\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This study aimed to describe the outcomes of the GentleWave system (GW) (Sonendo) on root canal treatment. Published articles were collected from scientific databases (MEDLINE/PubMed platform, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct and Embase). A total of 24 studies were collected from August/2014 to July/2021, 20 in vitro and 4 clinical. GW System was not associated with extrusion of the irrigant, promoted faster organic dissolution than conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI) and EndoVac, reduced more bacterial DNA and biofilm than PUI and CUI, promoted higher penetration of sodium hypochlorite into dentinal tubules than PUI and CUI in vitro, and removed more intracanal medication than CSI and PUI. GW was able to remove pulp tissue and calcifications. Moreover, its ability to remove hard-tissue debris and smear layer was better than that of CSI, and its ability to remove root canal obturation residues was lower or similar to that of PUI, and similar to that of CSI and EndoVac. Regarding root canal obturation of minimally instrumented molar canals, GW was associated with high-quality obturation. Clinically, the success rate of endodontic treatment using GW was 97.3%, and the short-term postoperative pain in the GW group was not different from CSI. Further research, mainly clinical, is needed to establish whether GW has any advantages over other available irrigation methods.\",\"PeriodicalId\":21102,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2022.47.e11\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2022.47.e11","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
本研究旨在描述GentleWave系统(GW)(Sonendo)在根管治疗中的效果。发表的文章来自科学数据库(MEDLINE/PubMed平台、Web of Science、Scopus、Science Direct和Embase)。从2014年8月至2021年7月,共收集了24项研究,其中20项为体外研究,4项为临床研究。GW系统与冲洗剂的挤出无关,在体外比常规注射器冲洗(CSI)、被动超声冲洗(PUI)、连续超声冲洗(CUI)和EndoVac促进更快的有机溶解,比PUI和CUI减少更多的细菌DNA和生物膜,比PUI和CUI促进更高的次氯酸钠对牙本质小管的渗透,并且去除了比CSI和PUI更多的肛门内药物。GW能够去除牙髓组织和钙化。此外,其去除硬组织碎片和涂抹层的能力优于CSI,去除根管堵塞残留物的能力低于或类似于PUI,类似于CSI和EndoVac。关于最小器械磨牙管的根管充填,GW与高质量的充填有关。临床上,GW根管治疗的成功率为97.3%,GW组的短期术后疼痛与CSI没有差异。需要进一步的研究,主要是临床研究,以确定GW是否比其他可用的灌溉方法有任何优势。
Outcomes of the GentleWave system on root canal treatment: a narrative review
This study aimed to describe the outcomes of the GentleWave system (GW) (Sonendo) on root canal treatment. Published articles were collected from scientific databases (MEDLINE/PubMed platform, Web of Science, Scopus, Science Direct and Embase). A total of 24 studies were collected from August/2014 to July/2021, 20 in vitro and 4 clinical. GW System was not associated with extrusion of the irrigant, promoted faster organic dissolution than conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI) continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI) and EndoVac, reduced more bacterial DNA and biofilm than PUI and CUI, promoted higher penetration of sodium hypochlorite into dentinal tubules than PUI and CUI in vitro, and removed more intracanal medication than CSI and PUI. GW was able to remove pulp tissue and calcifications. Moreover, its ability to remove hard-tissue debris and smear layer was better than that of CSI, and its ability to remove root canal obturation residues was lower or similar to that of PUI, and similar to that of CSI and EndoVac. Regarding root canal obturation of minimally instrumented molar canals, GW was associated with high-quality obturation. Clinically, the success rate of endodontic treatment using GW was 97.3%, and the short-term postoperative pain in the GW group was not different from CSI. Further research, mainly clinical, is needed to establish whether GW has any advantages over other available irrigation methods.