摘要
目的:比较高功率和低功率PIPS-Er:YAG激光对根管内玷污层去除效果。方法:收集52颗下颌单根管恒前磨牙,按最后冲洗方法不同随机分为4组(n=13):0.3 W、0.9 W PIPS-Er:YAG组,超声组和注射器冲洗组(均为对照组),冲洗结束后将牙纵向劈开分成两份,随机选取一份用扫描电镜分别扫描根尖部、根中部、冠部根管壁并对残留玷污层进行评分,最后比较4组冲洗方法对玷污层去除效果。结果:0.3 W PIPS-Er:YAG组和0.9W PIPS-Er:YAG组对玷污层的去除效果相当(P>0.05),两组均优于超声组,但差异无统计学意义(P>0.05),而与注射器冲洗组比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论:高功率和低功率的PIPS-Er:YAG激光均可促进玷污层的去除,两者去除效果相当,且均优于于超声冲洗和注射器冲洗。
Objective:To compare the efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming on the removal of smear layer with two power settings.Methods:52 extracted single-rooted mandibular premolars were instrumented up to ProTaper Universal F4 and randomly divided into 4 groups(n=13)according to the final irrigation techniques:0.3 W PIPS,0.9 W PIPS,ultrasonic,and needle irrigation.After the final irrigation,the teeth were split longitudinally into 2 parts and observed under a scanning electron microscope.Images were taken at the coronal,middle,and apical thirds of the teeth at a magnification of 1000×and were scored in the presence of the smear layer using the Hülsmann scoring system.Results:0.3 W PIPS and 0.9 W PIPS were comparable on the removal of the smear layer(P>0.05).Both groups were better than the ultrasound group,but the difference was not significant(P>0.05),while the difference between the PIPS and the needle irrigation was significant(P<0.05).Conclusion:0.3 W PIPS and 0.9 W PIPS are comparable on removal of the smear layer and are better than ulrasonic and needle irrigation.
引文
[1]Arslan D,Guneser MB,Dincer AN,et al.Comparison of smear layer removal ability of QMix with different activation techniques[J].J Endod,2016,42(8)∶1279-1285
[2]Divito E,Peters OA,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].Lasers Med Sci,2012,27(2)∶273-280
[3]Arslan H,Capar ID,Saygili G,et al.Effect of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming on removal of apically placed dentinal debris[J].Int Endod J,2014,47(11)∶1072-1077
[4]Nasher R,Franzen R,Gutknecht N.The effectiveness of the Erbium:Yttrium aluminum garnet PIPS technique in comparison to different chemical solutions in removing the endodontic smear layer-an in vitro profilometric study[J].Lasers Med Sci,2016,31(9)∶1871-1882
[5]Arslan H,Akcay M,Ertas H,et al.Effect of PIPS technique at different power settings on irrigating solution extrusion[J].Lasers Med Sci,2015,30(6)∶1641-1645
[6]Golob BS,Olivi G,Vrabec M,et al.Efficacy of photon-induced photoacoustic streaming in the reduction of enterococcus faecalis within the root canal:different settings and different sodium hypochlorite concentrations[J].J Endod,2017,43(10)∶1730-1735
[7]Turkel E,Onay E O,Ungor M.Comparison of three final irrigation activation techniques:effects on canal cleanness,smear layer removal,and dentinal tubule penetration of two root canal sealers[J].Photomed Laser Surg,2017,35(12)∶672-681
[8]段睿,王婷,赵颖煊,等.Er:YAG激光联合次氯酸钠对粪肠球菌杀菌效果的研究[J].口腔医学研究,2017,33(4)∶449-452
[9]Hülsmann M,Rummelin C,Schafers F.Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments:a comparative SEM investigation[J].J Endod,1997,23(5)∶301-306
[10]Balic M,Lucic R,Mehadzic K,et al.The efficacy of photon-initiated photoacoustic streaming and sonic-activated irrigation combined with QMiX solution or sodium hypochlorite against intracanal E.faecalis biofilm[J].Lasers Med Sci,2016,31(2)∶335-342
[11]Meire MA,Havelaerts S,De Moor RJ.Influence of lasing parameters on the cleaning efficacy of laser-activated irrigation with pulsed erbium lasers[J].Lasers Med Sci,2016,31(4)∶653-658
[12]Virdee SS,Seymour DW,Farnell D,et al.Efficacy of irrigant activation techniques in removing intracanal smear layer and debris from mature permanent teeth:a systematic review and meta-analysis[J].Int Endod J,2018,51(6)∶605-621
