Comparison of the Effects of Four Methods on the Removal of Calcium Hydroxide Paste in Root Canals by Three-dimensional Reconstruction of Mimics Software
-
摘要:
目的 比较4种方法对根管内氢氧化钙糊剂的清除效果。 方法 将40个45°单弯树脂根管随机分成4组，进行根管预备后用玻璃离子水门汀封闭根尖孔，在根管内填充氢氧化钙糊剂，硬蜡封闭根管口。37˚C恒温水浴放置14 d后，分别使用针头冲洗法、Er: YAG激光荡洗法、EDDY工作尖荡洗法和超声荡洗法4种方式消除根管内氢氧化钙糊剂。利用锥形束CT对氢氧化钙清除前后的树脂根管进行扫描，将扫描结果导入Mimics软件，通过Mimics软件对每个根管进行三维重建，并计算各根管内的氢氧化钙体积。氢氧化钙清除前体积为V1，清除后体积为V2，清除率 = （V1-V2）/V1×100%。使用秩和检验进行统计学分析。 结果 清除前各组氢氧化钙糊剂的初始体积差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05）。清除后Er: YAG激光组氢氧化钙糊剂剩余体积为0.1296（0.0920,0.1743） mm³，小于其他3组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05），氢氧化钙糊剂清除率为99.63%（99.53%，99.70%），高于其他3组，差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。EDDY组和超声荡洗组的清除率分别是99.08%（98.85%，99.19%）和99.04%（98.51%，99.15%），二者差异无统计学意义（P > 0.05），但均高于针头冲洗组74.99%（64.43%，88.07%），差异有统计学意义（P < 0.05）。 结论 Er：YAG激光荡洗、EDDY荡洗、超声荡洗对根管内氢氧化钙糊剂的清除效果均优于针头冲洗法。其中，Er：YAG激光荡洗清除效率最高，EDDY荡洗和超声荡洗的清除效果接近，但4种方法均无法完全清除弯曲根管内的氢氧化钙糊剂。 Abstract:Objective To compare the efficacy of four methods on removal of calcium hydroxide in root canals. Methods Forty simulated resin root canals with 45° curvature were randomly divided into four groups. After root canal preparation, the apical foramen were sealed with glass-ionomer cement, the root canals were filled with calcium hydroxide, and the root canal orifices were sealed with hard wax. After being placed in a constant temperature water bath at 37 ℃ for 14 days, four methods including needle irrigation, Er: YAG laser irrigation, EDDY working tip irrigation and ultrasonic irrigation were used to remove the calcium hydroxide. The resin root canals before and after calcium hydroxide removal were scanned by cone-beam CT, and the scanning results were imported into Mimics software. Three-dimensional reconstruction of each root canal was performed by Mimics software, and the volume of calcium hydroxide in each root canal was calculated. The volume of calcium hydroxide was V1 before removal and V2 after removal, and the clearance rate was （V1-V2）/V1 * 100%. Rank sum test was used for statistical analysis. Results There was no significant difference in the initial volume of calcium hydroxide paste among the groups before removal （P > 0.05）. After removal, the residual volume of calcium hydroxide paste in Er: YAG laser group was 0.1296 （0.0920, 0.1743） mm3, which was less than the other three groups, and the difference was statistically significant （P < 0.05）. The reduction rate of calcium hydroxide paste was 99.63 % （99.53%, 99.70%） in Er: YAG laser group, which was higher than the other three groups, and the difference was statistically significant （P < 0.05）. The reduction rates of EDDY group and ultrasonic group were 99.08% （98.85%, 99.19%） and 99.04% （98.51%, 99.15%）, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups （P > 0.05）, but they were higher than needle group 74.99% （64.43%, 88.07%） （P < 0.05）, and the difference was statistically significant. Conclusions In this study, Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation, EDDY irrigation and ultrasonic irrigation have better removal effects on calcium hydroxide paste in root canals than traditional needle irrigation. Compared with other four methods, Er: YAG laser-activated irrigation has the highest removal efficiency, EDDY irrigation and ultrasonic irrigation have similar removal efficiency, but none of the four methods could completely remove calcium hydroxide paste from the curved root canals. -
图 1 4种方法清除弯曲根管内氢氧化钙的三维重建图
注：a～d：氢氧化钙清除前图像；e～h：氢氧化钙清除后图像; a、e：针头冲洗组（A组）；b、f：Er：YAG激光荡洗组（B组）；c、g：EDDY荡洗组（C组）；d、h：超声荡洗组（D组）
Figure 1. Three-dimensional reconstruction of calcium hydroxide removal in curved root canals by four methods
图 2 4种方法对氢氧化钙糊剂的清除情况
*P < 0.05。
Figure 2. Removal of of calcium hydroxide by four methods
表 1 4组清除前后体积对比（mm3） [n = 10，M（P25，P75）]
Table 1. Volume comparison of four groups before and after removal （mm3） [n = 10，M（P25，P75）]
体积 A组 B组 C组 D组 H P V1 37.8930（35.0619，39.8430） 35.6483（30.3059，38.4624） 35.7387（31.7397，37.5094） 35.4451（31.7987，36.8102） 5.283 0.152 V2 9.1759（4.3191，12.6670） 0.1296（0.0920，0.1743） 0.3216（0.2644，0.4176） 0.3392（0.2939，0.4784）
32.830
< 0.001*Z −3.780 −3.780 −3.780 −3.780 P < 0.001* < 0.001* < 0.001* < 0.001* *P < 0.05。 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 4种方法对氢氧化钙糊剂的清除情况[n = 10，M（P25，P75）]
Table 2. Removal of calcium hydroxide by four methods [n = 10，M（P25，P75）]
分组 剩余氢氧化钙体积（mm） 氢氧化钙清除率（%） A组 9.1759（4.3191，12.6670） 74.99（64.43，88.07） B组 0.1296（0.0920，0.1743） 99.63（99.53，99.70） C组 0.3216（0.2644，0.4176） 99.08（98.85，99.19） D组 0.3392（0.2939，0.4784） 99.04（98.51，99.15） H 32.830 33.045 P < 0.001* < 0.001* *P < 0.05。
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 周学东. 牙体牙髓病学[M]. 5版. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2020: 223. [2] 龙赟子,郑春艳,王祖华. 不同冲洗方法去除根管内氢氧化钙封药的效果比较[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志,2016,43(2):233-238. [3] Kim S K,Kim Y O. Influence of calcium hydroxide intra- canal medication on apical seal[J]. Int Endod J,2002,35(7):623-628. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00539.x [4] Margelos J,Eliades G,Verdelis C,et al. Inter- action of calcium hydroxide with zinc oxide-eugenol type sealers:A potential clinical problem[J]. Endod,1997,23(1):43-48. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80206-3 [5] 白雨豪,侯晓玫,苏征. 不同方法对弯曲根管内氢氧化钙清除效果的锥形束CT研究[J]. 口腔医学研究,2017,33(11):1193-1196. [6] Kumar P,de Ataide I N,Fernandes M,et al. A cone-beam computed tomography assessment of the effi- cacy of different irrigation devices for removal of silicone oil-based calcium hydroxide from root canal system[J]. Conserv Dent,2017,20(2):68-71. doi: 10.4103/0972-0707.212245 [7] Tavella E Silva N C,Gibin J T,Rivera I C M M,et al. Calcium hydro- xide paste removal strategies and bond strengths of epoxy and silicate-based sealers[J]. Aust Endod J,2021,47(2):236-244. doi: 10.1111/aej.12460 [8] Marques-da-Silva B,Alberton C S,Tomazinho F S F,et al. Effectiveness of five instruments when removing calcium hydroxide paste from simulated internal root resorption cavities in extracted maxillary central incisors[J]. Int Eodod J,2020,53(3):366-375. doi: 10.1111/iej.13223 [9] 吴丽更,穆颖. 辅助根管冲洗器械的研究新进展[J]. 牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2012,22(10):606-609. [10] 唐澜,彭彬. 不同冲洗方法清除根管内氢氧化钙的体外研究[J]. 口腔疾病防治,2021,29(8):523-528. [11] 王楠,钱君荣,张晶. 4种荡洗技术清除内吸收根管模型中氢氧化钙糊剂的比较[J]. 中外医疗,2019,38(33):33-35. [12] 丁群,郑晶,王安,叶帼嫔. 六种冲洗器械对根管内氢氧化钙封药清除效果的研究[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志,2018,34(11):674-677. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1003-1634.2018.11.010 [13] 王娇,刘洋,张晓玲,等. Mimics软件在医学图像三维重建中的应用[J]. 医疗卫生装备,2015,36(2):115-118. [14] Lee S J,Wu M K,Wesselink P R. The effectiveness of syringe irrigation and ultrasonics to remove debris from simulated irregularities within prepared root canal walls[J]. Int Endod J,2004,37(10):672-678. [15] Turkaydin D,Basturk F B,Goker S,et al. Efficacy of Endoactivator,CanalBrush,and passive ultrasonic irrigation in the removal of cal- cium hydroxide paste with iodoform and pchloro- phenol from root canals[J]. Niger J Clin Pract,2020,23(9):1237-1242. doi: 10.4103/njcp.njcp_710_19 [16] Yang Qian,Liu Mingwen,Zhu Lingxin,et al. Comparison of needle,ultrasonic,and laser irrigation for the removal of calcium hydroxide from man dibular molar root canals[J]. Photobiomodulation,Photomedicine,and Laser Surgery,2021,39(5):349-354. [17] Lloyd A,Navarrete G,Marchesan M A,et al. Removal of calcium hydroxide from Weine Type II systems using photon induced photoacoustic streaming,passive ultra- sonic and needle irrigation:a microcomputed tomography study[J]. Journal of Applied Oral Science,2016,24(6):543-548. doi: 10.1590/1678-775720160234 [18] Kourti E,Pantelidou O. Comparison of different agitation methods for the removal of calcium hydroxide from the root canal:Scanning electron microscopy study[J]. Conserve Dent,2017,20(6):439-444. doi: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_273_17 [19] Peeters H H,Gutknecht N. Efficacy of laser-driven irrigation versus ultrasonic in removing an airlock from the apical third of a narrow root cancal[J]. Aust Endod J,2014,40(2):47-53. doi: 10.1111/aej.12016 [20] Divito E,Peters O A,Olivi G. Effectiveness of the erbium:YAG laser and new design radial and stripped tips in removing the smear layer after root canal instrumentation[J]. Laser Med Sci,2012,27(2):273-280. doi: 10.1007/s10103-010-0858-x [21] Hoshihara Y,Watanabe S,Kouno A,et al. Effect of tip insertion depth and irradiation parameters on the efficacy of cleaning calcium hydroxide from simulated lateral canals using Er:YAG laser or ultrasonic activated irrigation[J]. Dent Sci,2021,16(2):654-660. doi: 10.1016/j.jds.2020.10.004 [22] 沈妍欣,俸宇超,任杰,等. 影响超声对根管内氢氧化钙清除效果的相关因素[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志,2014,41(4):483-486. [23] 彭光晶. 超声波技术在口腔根管治疗中的应用研究进展[J]. 中国医疗器械信息,2020,26(6):27-29. doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1006-6586.2020.06.013 [24] 贾卓群,杨路. 影响根管消毒剂氢氧化钙清除效率的因素[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志,2018,45(4):439-443. doi: 10.7518/gjkq.2018.04.012 [25] Zeng C,Willison J,Meghil M M,et al. Antibacterial efficacy of an endodontic sonic-powered irrigation system:An invitro study[J]. Dent,2018,75:105-112. doi: 10.1016/j.jdent.2018.06.003 -
点击查看大图
图(2) / 表(2)
计量
- 文章访问数: 3325
- HTML全文浏览量: 2102
- PDF下载量: 12
- 被引次数: 0
