可以使用计算液体过滤法评估不同灌溉技术的氢氧化钙,以评估不同灌溉方法的微密度

Q3 Dentistry Cumhuriyet Dental Journal Pub Date : 2022-09-30 DOI:10.7126/cumudj.1137675
Gülsüm KUTLU BASMACI, Faruk Haznedaroğlu
{"title":"可以使用计算液体过滤法评估不同灌溉技术的氢氧化钙,以评估不同灌溉方法的微密度","authors":"Gülsüm KUTLU BASMACI, Faruk Haznedaroğlu","doi":"10.7126/cumudj.1137675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To compare the efficiency of sonic irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and conventional syringe irrigation (CI) in removing pure and injectable calcium hydroxide (CH) from the root canals of mandibular second premolars by measuring the probable microleakage of residual CH particles in root canal obturation using computerized liquid filtration (CLF).\nMaterials and Methods: Eighty instrumented mandibular second premolars were categorized into three experimental groups (n = 20 each) based on the irrigation method used for removing CH and a control group (n = 20) in which CH was not used. Each experimental group was divided into two equal groups (pure and injectable CH). After 1 week, CH was removed from the root canals, and the teeth were obturated. CLF measurements were performed 1 week after obturation. Nonparametric variables between two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare more than two groups. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.\nResults: All experimental groups showed higher leakage values than the control group. The highest leakage values were evident in the CI group, and the lowest leakage values were found in the sonic (EDDY) irrigation group. No significant differences were detected among the different forms of CH.\nConclusions: None of the analyzed techniques could completely remove CH from root canals, resulting in higher leakage values. Sonic irrigation with EDDY was the best in removing CH from root canals.","PeriodicalId":10781,"journal":{"name":"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Farklı irrigasyon tekniklerinin kalsiyum hidroksit uzaklaştırma etkinliğinin Bilgisayarlı Sıvı Filtrasyon methodu kullanılarak mikrosızıntılarının değerlendirilmesi\",\"authors\":\"Gülsüm KUTLU BASMACI, Faruk Haznedaroğlu\",\"doi\":\"10.7126/cumudj.1137675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Aim: To compare the efficiency of sonic irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and conventional syringe irrigation (CI) in removing pure and injectable calcium hydroxide (CH) from the root canals of mandibular second premolars by measuring the probable microleakage of residual CH particles in root canal obturation using computerized liquid filtration (CLF).\\nMaterials and Methods: Eighty instrumented mandibular second premolars were categorized into three experimental groups (n = 20 each) based on the irrigation method used for removing CH and a control group (n = 20) in which CH was not used. Each experimental group was divided into two equal groups (pure and injectable CH). After 1 week, CH was removed from the root canals, and the teeth were obturated. CLF measurements were performed 1 week after obturation. Nonparametric variables between two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare more than two groups. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.\\nResults: All experimental groups showed higher leakage values than the control group. The highest leakage values were evident in the CI group, and the lowest leakage values were found in the sonic (EDDY) irrigation group. No significant differences were detected among the different forms of CH.\\nConclusions: None of the analyzed techniques could completely remove CH from root canals, resulting in higher leakage values. Sonic irrigation with EDDY was the best in removing CH from root canals.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10781,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1137675\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cumhuriyet Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.7126/cumudj.1137675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:通过计算机液体过滤(CLF)测量下颌第二前磨牙根管充填过程中残留氢氧化钙颗粒的可能微渗漏,比较声波冲洗、被动超声冲洗和常规注射器冲洗(CI)从根管中去除纯氢氧化钙和可注射氢氧化钙的效率。材料和方法:根据用于去除CH的冲洗方法,将80颗装有器械的下颌第二前磨牙分为三个实验组(每组n=20)和一个不使用CH的对照组(n=20)。每个实验组被分为两个相等的组(纯CH和可注射CH)。1周后,从根管中取出CH,并对牙齿进行封闭。在闭孔后1周进行CLF测量。使用Mann-Whitney U检验比较两组之间的非参数变量,使用Kruskal-Wallis检验比较两个以上的组。结果:所有实验组的渗漏值均高于对照组。CI组的渗漏值最高,声波(EDDY)灌注组的渗漏量最低。不同形式的CH之间没有显著差异。结论:所分析的技术都不能完全去除根管中的CH,导致更高的渗漏值。EDDY声波冲洗对根管CH的去除效果最好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Farklı irrigasyon tekniklerinin kalsiyum hidroksit uzaklaştırma etkinliğinin Bilgisayarlı Sıvı Filtrasyon methodu kullanılarak mikrosızıntılarının değerlendirilmesi
Aim: To compare the efficiency of sonic irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation, and conventional syringe irrigation (CI) in removing pure and injectable calcium hydroxide (CH) from the root canals of mandibular second premolars by measuring the probable microleakage of residual CH particles in root canal obturation using computerized liquid filtration (CLF). Materials and Methods: Eighty instrumented mandibular second premolars were categorized into three experimental groups (n = 20 each) based on the irrigation method used for removing CH and a control group (n = 20) in which CH was not used. Each experimental group was divided into two equal groups (pure and injectable CH). After 1 week, CH was removed from the root canals, and the teeth were obturated. CLF measurements were performed 1 week after obturation. Nonparametric variables between two groups were compared using the Mann-Whitney U test, and the Kruskal-Wallis test was used to compare more than two groups. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. Results: All experimental groups showed higher leakage values than the control group. The highest leakage values were evident in the CI group, and the lowest leakage values were found in the sonic (EDDY) irrigation group. No significant differences were detected among the different forms of CH. Conclusions: None of the analyzed techniques could completely remove CH from root canals, resulting in higher leakage values. Sonic irrigation with EDDY was the best in removing CH from root canals.
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
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal
Cumhuriyet Dental Journal Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
The Effects of Home and Over-The-Counter Whitening Agents on Surface Roughness and Microhardness of High Aesthetic Composites Çocukların Ağız Alışkanlıklarına İlişkin Ebeveyn Farkındalık ve Bilgi Düzeyinin Değerlendirilmesi: Bir Anket Çalışması İmplant destekli sabit bölümlü protez tedavisi yapılan hastalarında yaşam kalitesi ve memnuniyetinin değerlendirilmesi Comparison of Clinical and Radiographic Healing of Periapical Lesions Using MTA or Conventional Filling Materials: Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Effect of Music Therapy on Dental Anxiety in Periodontal Surgery
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1