Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases ›› 2019, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (7): 451-456.DOI: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2019.07.008

• Cinical Study • Previous Articles     Next Articles

Apical sealability in extracted teeth by the root canal filling agents GuttaFlow and AH Plus: a systematic review

Xiyu YUAN1,Zhaoxia CONG1,Zeyu WU1,Jin ZHAO1,2()   

  1. 1.Department of Endodontics, The Affliated Stomatological Hospital of Xinjiang Medical University, Urumqi 830054, China
    2.Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region Institute of Stomatology, Urumqi , China
  • Received:2018-10-11 Revised:2019-03-05 Online:2019-07-20 Published:2019-07-24
  • Contact: Jin ZHAO

根管充填剂GuttaFlow和AH Plus对离体牙根尖封闭性的系统评价


  1. 1.新疆医科大学附属口腔医院牙体牙髓科,新疆维吾尔自治区 乌鲁木齐 (830054)
    2.新疆维吾尔自治区口腔医学研究所,新疆维吾尔自治区 乌鲁木齐 (830054)
  • 通讯作者: 赵今
  • 作者简介:袁曦玉,医师,硕士研究生在读,Email:
  • 基金资助:


Objective To compare the apical sealing effects of two root canal fillers, GuttaFlow and AH Plus, for clinical reference. Methods The Cochrane system evaluation method was used to search the Cochrane Library, Embase, CBM, PubMed, CNKI, Weipu, and Wanfang databases. Additionally, relevant journals and conference papers were manually retrieved, and relevant randomized controlled trials were collected. Two reviewers independently evaluated the quality of each study and extracted the data. A meta-analysis was performed using the RevMan5.3 software for homogenous studies, and a descriptive analysis was performed for studies with poor homogeneity. Results In total, 10 randomized controlled trials containing 398 isolated teeth were included. The meta-analysis results showed that the difference in apical microleakage was statistically significant at 1 week and 3 months [1 week: MD=-0.13, 95% CI (-0.22,-0.04), P=0.007; 3 months: MD=-1.27, 95% CI (-1.94,-0.60), P=0.000 2] but not at 6 months [MD=-0.10, 95% CI (-0.26, 0.06), P=0.23]. Conclusion Based on existing research results, GuttaFlow may achieve better results than AH Plus in the short term (≤ 1 week). Because it is subject to limitations of time, quality, and research methods, this conclusion requires more long-term, high-quality, large-sample, multimeasurement randomized controlled trials for further validation.

Key words: GuttaFlow, AH Plus, root canal therapy, root canal filling, microleakage, Meta-analysis


目的 比较两种根管充填剂GuttaFlow和AH Plus的根尖封闭作用,为临床提供参考。方法 采用Cochrane系统评价方法,计算机检索Cochrane图书馆、EMbase、CBM、PubMed、CNKI、维普、万方数据库。同时手工检索相关期刊和会议论文,收集相关随机对照试验。由两名评价者独立评价研究质量和提取数据,对同质研究采用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析,对同质性较差的研究采用描述性分析。结果 最终纳入10个随机对照试验,共398颗离体牙。Meta分析显示:GuttaFlow组和AH Plus组在根管充填后1周[MD=-0.13,95%CI(-0.22,-0.04),P=0.007]和3个月[MD=-1.27,95%CI(-1.94,-0.60),P=0.000 2]根尖微渗漏值差异有统计学意义,GuttaFlow组的根尖封闭作用优于AH Plus组;GuttaFlow组和AH Plus组在根管充填后6个月[MD=-0.10,95%CI(-0.26,0.06),P=0.23]根尖微渗漏值差异无统计学意义。结论 基于现有研究结果,GuttaFlow在短期内(≤1周)根尖封闭作用可能优于AH Plus。受纳入研究时间、质量和研究方法的限制,此结论还需要更多长期、高质量、大样本、多测量指标的随机对照试验来进一步验证。

关键词: GuttaFlow, AH Plus, 根管治疗, 根管充填, 微渗漏, Meta分析

CLC Number: