口腔疾病防治 ›› 2020, Vol. 28 ›› Issue (7): 433-437.DOI: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2020.07.005

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

iRoot SP、GuttaFlow2、AH Plus根管封闭剂的临床应用比较

胡静1,2,杨丽平2,胡辉1,钟晓波2,齐进2()   

  1. 1. 重庆市高校市级口腔生物医学工程重点实验室 口腔疾病与生物医学重庆市重点实验室,重庆(401147)
    2. 重庆医科大学附属口腔医院牙体牙髓科,重庆(401147)
  • 收稿日期:2019-12-16 修回日期:2020-02-02 出版日期:2020-07-20 发布日期:2020-06-04
  • 通讯作者: 齐进
  • 作者简介:胡静,硕士研究生在读,Email:2017110915@stu.cqmu.edu.cn
  • 基金资助:
    重庆市卫生局医学科研项目(2012-2-138);重庆市科卫联合医学科研项目(2018MSXM042);2016年重庆高校创新团队建设计划资助项目(CXTDG201602006)

Comparison of clinical application of iRoot SP, GuttaFlow 2 and AH Plus root canal sealer

HU Jing1,2,YANG Liping2,HU Hui1,ZHONG Xiaobo2,QI Jin2()   

  1. 1. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences & Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education, Chongqing 401147, China
    2. Department of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 401147, China
  • Received:2019-12-16 Revised:2020-02-02 Online:2020-07-20 Published:2020-06-04
  • Contact: Jin QI

摘要:

目的 对两种常温流动根充封闭剂(硅酸钙基-iRoot SP、硅氧烷基-GuttaFlow2)结合单尖充填技术以及常用封闭剂(AH Plus)结合连续波热牙胶充填技术的短期临床效果进行评价。方法 将279颗患牙(656个根管)随机分为3组,分别为iRoot SP组、GuttaFlow2 组以及AH Plus组。记录每个根管的充填时间,拍数字化牙片评估每个根管的充填效果,并于术后1周及1月进行回访,记录患者的疼痛发生率。SPSS18.0对以上数据行统计学分析。结果 3组的根管充填效果均无统计学差异(P > 0.05);iRoot SP组与GuttaFlow2组的充填时间无显著差异(P > 0.05),较AH Plus组明显缩短(P < 0.05);iRoot SP组与GuttaFlow2组的术后疼痛无统计学差异(P > 0.05),iRoot SP组与GuttaFlow2组均较AH Plus组疼痛发生率较低(P < 0.05)。结论 GuttaFlow2和iRoot SP配合单尖充填技术较常用热牙胶充填技术节省填充时间,且能获得良好的临床效果,术后疼痛发生率较低。

关键词: iRoot SP, GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, 常温流动根充封闭剂, 牙髓治疗, 单尖充填技术, 根管治疗术, 根管封闭剂, 根尖周病, 根管填充时间, 术后疼痛

Abstract:

Objective The short-term clinical effects of two kinds of normal temperature flow root sealers (the calcium silicate-based sealer iRoot SP and the siloxane-based sealer GuttaFlow2) combined with single point filling technology and a frequently-used sealing agent (AH Plus) combined with continuous wave hot tooth filling technology were evaluated. Methods A total of 279 teeth (656 root canals) were randomly divided into three groups: the iRoot SP group, GuttaFlow2 group and AH plus group. We recorded the filling time of each root canal, collected a digital dental film to evaluate the filling effect of each root canal, and conducted a follow-up visit one week and one month after the operation to record the incidence of pain. We used SPSS 18.0 to analyze the above data. Results There was no significant difference in the root canal filling effect among the three groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the filling time between the iRoot SP group and the GuttaFlow2 group (P > 0.05), but the filling time was significantly shorter in the AH Plus group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the postoperative pain between the iRoot SP group and the GuttaFlow2 group (P > 0.05), and the incidence of pain in the iRoot SP group and the GuttaFlow2 group was lower than that in the AH Plus group (P < 0.05). Conclusions GuttaFlow2 and iRoot SP combined with single point filling technology can save filling time and obtain good clinical effects compared with frequently-used hot tooth filling technology and the incidence of postoperative pain was low.

Key words: iRoot SP, GuttaFlow2, AH Plus, normal temperature flow root sealer, pulp treatment, single point filling technique, root canal therapy, root canal sealer, periapical disease, root canal filling time, postoperative pain

中图分类号: