Dergiler / International Dental Research / 2019 / Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1

The effects of different irrigation agents on root canal dentine micro-hardness and surface roughness

Sayfa
16–21
Yayın Tarihi
2022-10-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bu makalenin bibliyografik verileri ve tam metin bağlantısı DergiPark üzerinden sağlanmıştır.
DergiPark Kaydı ↗
✨

Yapay Zeka Hızlı Bakış & Çıkarımlar

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(1 Cümlede Hızlı Çıkarım)

A significant difference was observed between the QMix- and 2% CHX-treated groups, and between the 5% NaOCl- and QMix-treated groups (p

📌 3 Maddede Bu Makale

🎯
Amaç & Hipotez:Aim: Successful endodontic treatments rely on sufficient mechanical preparation and irrigation of the root canal followed by an adequate three-dimensional filling.
📊
Temel Bulgular & Veri:Methodology: A total of 60 human maxillary incisors and canine teeth were used in this study.
💡
Sonuç & Katkı:A significant difference was observed between the QMix- and 2% CHX-treated groups, and between the 5% NaOCl- and QMix-treated groups (p
🔬Tür:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Kapsam:Genişletilmiş Akademik Örneklem
⚙️Değişkenler:Alan Parametreleri

Abstract

Aim: Successful endodontic treatments rely on sufficient mechanical preparation and irrigation of the root canal followed by an adequate three-dimensional filling. This study investigated the changes in root dentine micro-hardness and surface roughness upon treatment with different irrigating agents. Methodology: A total of 60 human maxillary incisors and canine teeth were used in this study. The crowns of all teeth were decoronated and roots were divided longitudinally. The samples were separated into three groups prior to irrigation. A 5% NaOCl irrigation agent was applied to the first group, a QMix agent was used for the second group, and a 2% CHX agent was used for the third group. All irrigations were performed for 15 minutes. Following irrigation, microstructural and surface-roughness measurements were taken again from all samples. Results: Micro-hardness was not significantly different between QMix or 5% NaOCl (p>0.05). A significant difference was observed between the QMix- and 2% CHX-treated groups, and between the 5% NaOCl- and QMix-treated groups (p

🔖

Bu Makaleye Atıf Yap

ÖZTEKİN, F., ADIGÜZEL, Ö. (2022). The effects of different irrigation agents on root canal dentine micro-hardness and surface roughness. International Dental Research, Cilt: 9 - Sayı: 1, 16–21. https://ajindex.com/articles/539521

📄 Tam Metin PDF Okuyucu

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

Kaynakça (15)

  1. Zehnder M. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389–98. (Crossref
  2. Gu LS, Kim JR, Ling J, Choi KK, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Review of contemporary irrigant agitation techniques and devices. J Endod 2009;35(6):791-804. (Crossref) 3. de Gregorio C, Estevez R, Cisneros R, et al. Efficacy of different irrigation and activation systems on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into simulated lateral canals and up to working length: an in vitro study. J Endod 2010;36:1216–21. (Crossref
  3. Çalışkan MK. Endodontide tanı ve tedaviler. Nobel Tıp Kitapevleri, İstanbul; s. 243, 2006
  4. Gomes BP, Souza SF, Ferraz CC, et al. Effectiveness of 2% chlorhexidine gel and calcium hydroxide against Enterococcus faecalis in bovine root dentine in vitro. Int Endod J 2003;36:267-75. (Crossref
  5. Zamany A, Safavi K, Spangberg LS. The effect of chlorhexidine as an endodontic disinfectant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:578-81. (Crossref
  6. Stojicic S, Shen Y, Qian W, et al. Antibacterial and smear layer removal ability of a novel irrigant, QMix. Int Endod J 2012;45:363–71. (Crossref
  7. Eliot C, Hatton JF, Stewart GP et al. The effect of the irrigant QMix on removal of canal wall smear layer: an ex vivo study. Odontology 2014;102:232–40. (Crossref
  8. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2010;54:291-312. (Crossref
  9. Wang Z, Shen Y, Ma J, Haapasalo M. The effect of detergents on the antibacterial activity of disinfecting solutions in dentin. J Endod 2012;38:948–53. (Crossref
  10. Bui TB, Baumgartner JC, Mitchell JC. Evaluation of the interaction between sodium hypochlorite and chlorhexidine gluconate and its effect on root dentin. J Endod 2008;34:181– 5. (Crossref
  11. Van Noort R. Introduction to dental materials. 2nd Ed. London, England: Mosby Int. Pub. Ltd. 2003:96-123
  12. Kakaboura A, Fragouli M, Rahiotis C, Silikas N. Evaluation of surface characteristics of dental composites using profilometry, scanning electron, atomic force microscopy and gloss-meter. J. Mater. Sci. Mater. Med.2007;18(1):155-63. (Crossref
  13. Jefferies SR. The art and science of abrasive finishing and polishing in restorative dentistry. Dent. Clin. North Am.1998;42(4):613-27
  14. Whitehead SA, Shearer AC, Watts DC, Wilson NH. Comparison of methods for measuring surface roughness of ceramic. J. Oral Rehabil.1995;22(6):421-7. (Crossref
  15. Heiling I, Steinberg D, Kenig S, et al. Efficacy of a substainedrelease device containing