论文部分内容阅读
目的比较两种根管封闭剂GuttaFlow 2及AH Plus与根管壁的粘接性能,为临床应用提供参考。方法选取新鲜拔除的单根管下颌前磨牙20颗,根据所用封闭剂不同随机分为两组,即AH Plus实验组及GuttaFlow 2实验组,每组10颗离体牙。两组均使用旋转镍钛器械ProTaper预备至F3,单尖法充填后,自冠方向根方每间隔0.25mm制作硬组织切片8片,切片厚度1mm,应用万能实验机进行推出实验,比较两组间推出强度(MPa),并在立体显微镜下观察断裂类型。结果每组封闭剂组内不同牙根水平推出强度无统计学差异(P>0.05),在两封闭剂实验组间,AH Plus实验组试样的平均推出强度(1.58±0.95MPa)明显高于GuttaFlow 2实验组(0.38±0.28MPa)(P<0.001)。两实验组均以混合型断裂(mixed)为主要断裂类型,但GuttaFlow 2实验组中有16.4%的断裂为管壁间断裂(adhesive),而AH Plus实验组中并未观察到此种断裂类型。结论在实验条件下,GuttaFlow 2组的推出强度明显低于AH Plus组,有16.4%的断裂为管壁间断裂。
Objective To compare the adhesive properties of two kinds of root canal sealers GuttaFlow 2 and AH Plus with the root canal wall and provide a reference for clinical application. Methods Twenty fresh mandibular premolars were extracted and divided into two groups randomly according to different blocking agents: AH plus experimental group and GuttaFlow 2 experimental group with 10 isolated teeth in each group. Both groups were prepared using rotary NiTi equipment ProTaper to F3, single-tip filling method, the root direction from the crown every 0.25mm interval made of hard tissue sections 8, slice thickness 1mm, the use of universal testing machine launched experiments comparing two groups Between the launch of the intensity (MPa), and observed under stereomicroscope fracture type. Results There was no significant difference in the strength of root release between each group (P> 0.05). The mean launch strength (1.58 ± 0.95 MPa) of AH Plus group was significantly higher than that of GuttaFlow 2 experimental group (0.38 ± 0.28 MPa) (P <0.001). Mixed groups were the main types of fractures in both groups, but 16.4% of the GuttaFlow 2 group were wall-to-wall fractures, whereas no such type of fracture was observed in the AH Plus group . Conclusion Under the experimental conditions, the launch strength of GuttaFlow 2 group is obviously lower than that of AH Plus group, and 16.4% of the breakage is the inter-vessel wall fracture.