3种生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂根尖封闭性的体外研究

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2025.2024289

华西口腔医学杂志 ›› 2025, Vol. 43 ›› Issue (2): 204-211.doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2025.2024289

3种生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂根尖封闭性的体外研究

朱静雅¹^,²(), 黄日鸿¹^,³, 曾祥倪¹^,³, 蒋丽¹^,³, 何飞¹()

^1.深圳市人民医院（暨南大学第二临床医学院，南方科技大学第一附属医院）口腔科，深圳 518020
^2.深圳市第三人民医院（南方科技大学第二附属医院）口腔科，深圳 518112
^3.暨南大学口腔医学院口腔医学系，广州 510632

收稿日期:2024-08-07 修回日期:2024-12-02 出版日期:2025-04-01 发布日期:2025-03-25
通讯作者: 何飞 E-mail:jingya1205@163.com;hefeixqkq@aliyun.com
作者简介:朱静雅，医师，硕士，E-mail：jingya1205@163.com
基金资助:
深圳市自然科学基金(JCYJ20210324114005016)

Comparison of apical sealing ability of three bioceramic root canal sealers in vitro

Zhu Jingya¹^,²(), Huang Rihong¹^,³, Zeng Xiangni¹^,³, Jiang Li¹^,³, He Fei¹()

^1.Dept. of Stomatology, Shenzhen People’s Hospital (The Second Clinical College of Jinan University, The First Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen 518020, China
^2.Dept. of Stomatology, The Third People's Hospital of Shenzhen (The Second Affiliated Hospital of Southern University of Science and Technology), Shenzhen 518112, China
^3.Dept. of Stomatology, School of Stomatology, Jinan University, Guangzhou 510632, China

Received:2024-08-07 Revised:2024-12-02 Online:2025-04-01 Published:2025-03-25
Contact: He Fei E-mail:jingya1205@163.com;hefeixqkq@aliyun.com
Supported by:
Shenzhen Science and Technology Foundation(JCYJ20210324114005016)

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的比较3种生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂C-Root SP（C-R）、iRoot SP及GuttaFlow Bioseal（GFB）的体外根尖封闭性。方法将82颗单根单管前磨牙及前牙使用M3机用镍钛锉预备后，随机分为6个实验组（n=12）和2个对照组（n=5）。分别行单尖法充填和超声活化单尖法充填，即C-R+单尖法（A1组）、C-R+超声活化单尖法（A2组）、iRoot SP+单尖法（B1组）、iRoot SP+超声活化单尖法（B2组）、GFB+单尖法（C1组）、GFB+超声活化单尖法（C2组）、阳性对照组（D组）和阴性对照组（E组）。采用染料渗透法检测各组根尖染料渗入长度及侧支根管充填情况，扫描电镜（SEM）观察各组牙胶-根管封闭剂-牙本质壁的结合界面。染料渗入长度及侧支根管数目进行Kruskal-Wallis检验，侧支根管充填率进行卡方检验。结果 A1组染料渗入长度小于C1组及A2组（P<0.05），其余各组间染料渗入长度差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；各组间侧支根管充填情况差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）；SEM观察，与A1、A2、B1、B2组相比，C1、C2组根管封闭剂-根管壁-牙胶界面更紧密，充填物渗入牙本质小管的数目更多，渗入牙本质小管的长度更长。结论 GFB、C-R与iRoot SP均有良好的根尖封闭性。本研究条件下，超声活化单尖法不会显著提高3种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭性。

关键词: 根管治疗, 根管封闭剂, 根尖封闭性

Abstract:

Objective We aimed to compare the apical sealing properties of three endodontic sealers, namely, C-Root SP (C-R), iRoot SP, and GuttaFlow Bioseal (GFB) in vitro. Methods Eighty-two single-rooted premolars and anterior teeth were prepared by using M3 machine with nickel-titanium file and randomly divided into six experimental groups (n=12) and two control groups (n=5). Group A1: single-cone technique (SC)+C-R; group B1: SC+iRoot SP; group C1: SC+GFB; group A2: single-cone with ultrasonic activation (SU)+C-R; group B2: SU+iRoot SP; group C2: SU +GFB; group D: positive control group, and group E: negative control group. Dye penetration length and lateral root canal filling in each group were measured by dye penetration test. A scanning electron microscope (SEM) was used to observe the interface between gutta pertscha, root canal sealer, and dentin wall. Dye penetration length was measured and analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test, and data on lateral root canal filling were evaluated using Chi-square. Results The dye penetration length in group A1 was lower than that in groups C1 and A2 (P<0.05) but was not significantly different from the other groups (P>0.05). Lateral root canal filling was not significantly different among all groups (P>0.05). SEM showed that GFB was slightly better than C-R and iRoot SP in binding to gutta pertcha and dentin wall. Conclusion GFB, C-R, and iRoot SP demonstrate excellent apical sealing ability. Under the conditions tested in this study, SU did not yield significantly improve the apical sealing ability of the three root canal sealers.

Key words: root canal therapy, root canal sealer, apical sealing ability

中图分类号:

R781.3

朱静雅, 黄日鸿, 曾祥倪, 蒋丽, 何飞. 3种生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂根尖封闭性的体外研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2025, 43(2): 204-211.

Zhu Jingya, Huang Rihong, Zeng Xiangni, Jiang Li, He Fei. Comparison of apical sealing ability of three bioceramic root canal sealers in vitro[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2025, 43(2): 204-211.

图/表 8

图 1

图 2

图 3

图 4

图 5

图 6

图 7

图 8

参考文献 22

1	张琛. 根管充填的难点和误区[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2017, 35(3): 232-238.
	Zhang C. Difficulties and misunderstandings of root canal filling[J]. West China J Stomatol, 2017, 35(3): 232-238.
2	Plotino G, Grande NM, Mercade M, et al. Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic irrigation devices in the removal of debris from canal irregularities in artificial root canals[J]. J Appl Oral Sci, 2019, 27: e20180045.
3	Wang Y, Liu S, Dong Y. In vitro study of dentinal tubule penetration and filling quality of bioceramic sealer[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(2): e0192248.
4	Zhang W, Li Z, Peng B. Assessment of a new root canal sealer’s apical sealing ability[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2009, 107(6): e79-e82.
5	Alfahlawy A, Selim MAA, Hassan HY. Biocompatibility of three different root canal sealers, experimental study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2023, 23(1): 715.
6	Jing Y, Gong T, Duan CG, et al. In vitro cytocompatibility and osteogenic potential of calcium silicate-based dental cements in a root canal-filling model[J]. J Int Med Res, 2020, 48(4): 300060519894801.
7	Rekha R, Kavitha R, Venkitachalam R, et al. Comparison of the sealing ability of bioceramic sealer against epoxy resin based sealer: a systematic review & meta-analysis[J]. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res, 2023, 13(1): 28-35.
8	吕翱, 林晓新, 郭晓莉, 等. 三种根管封闭剂的根尖封闭性能体外比较研究[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2022, 15(3): 300-303.
	Lü A, Lin XX, Guo XL, et al. Study on the apical sea-ling ability of three root canal sealers in vitro [J]. Chin J Pract Stomatol, 2022, 15(3): 300-303.
9	史景华, 康文岩, 满都拉, 等. 硅基根管封闭剂GuttaFlow Bioseal充填椭圆形根管的根尖封闭效果[J]. 中国组织工程研究, 2022, 26(21): 3389-3393.
	Shi JH, Kang WY, Man DL, et al. Apical sealing of GuttaFlow Bioseal in oval-root canals[J]. Chin J Tissue Eng Res, 2022, 15(21): 3389-3393.
10	Majumdar TK, Mukherjee S, Mazumdar P. Microscopic evaluation of sealer penetration and interfacial adaptation of three different endodontic sealers: an in vitro stu-dy[J]. J Conserv Dent, 2021, 24(5): 435-439.
11	Lyu WJ, Bai W, Wang XY, et al. Physicochemical properties of a novel bioceramic silicone-based root canal sealer[J]. J Dent Sci, 2022, 17(2): 831-835.
12	Candeiro GT, Correia FC, Duarte MA, et al. Evaluation of radiopacity, pH, release of calcium ions, and flow of a bioceramic root canal sealer[J]. J Endod, 2012, 38(6): 842-845.
13	Ozlek E, Gündüz H, Akkol E, et al. Dentin moisture conditions strongly influence its interactions with bioactive root canal sealers[J]. Restor Dent Endod, 2020, 45(2): e24.
14	Zhekov KI, Stefanova VP. Definition and classification of bioceramic endodontic sealers[J]. Folia Med (Plov-div), 2021, 63(6): 901-904.
15	Akcay M, Arslan H, Durmus N, et al. Dentinal tubule penetration of AH Plus, iRoot SP, MTA fillapex, and guttaflow bioseal root canal sealers after different final irrigation procedures: a confocal microscopic study[J]. Lasers Surg Med, 2016, 48(1): 70-76.
16	Najafzadeh R, Fazlyab M, Esnaashari E. Comparison of bioceramic and epoxy resin sealers in terms of marginal adaptation and tubular penetration depth with different obturation techniques in premolar teeth: a scanning electron microscope and confocal laser scanning microscopy study[J]. J Family Med Prim Care, 2022, 11(5): 1794-1797.
17	Yang RQ, Tian J, Huang XY, et al. A comparative study of dentinal tubule penetration and the retreatability of EndoSequence BC Sealer HiFlow, iRoot SP, and AH Plus with different obturation techniques[J]. Clin Oral Investig, 2021, 25(6): 4163-4173.
18	Alshehri M, Alamri HM, Alshwaimi E, et al. Micro-computed tomographic assessment of quality of obturation in the apical third with continuous wave vertical compaction and single match taper sized cone obturation techniques[J]. Scanning, 2016, 38(4): 352-356.
19	Özkurt-Kayahan Z, Barut G, Ulusoy Z, et al. Influence of post space preparation on the apical leakage of calamus, single-cone and cold lateral condensation obturation techniques: a computerized fluid filtration study[J]. J Prosthodont, 2019, 28(5): 587-591.
20	Zhang PF, Yuan KY, Jin QQ, et al. Presence of voids after three obturation techniques in band-shaped isthmu-ses: a micro-computed tomography study[J]. BMC Oral Health, 2021, 21(1): 227.
21	Kim JA, Hwang YC, Rosa V, et al. Root canal filling quality of a premixed calcium silicate endodontic sealer applied using gutta-percha cone-mediated ultrasonic activation[J]. J Endod, 2018, 44(1): 133-138.
22	Ko SY, Choi HW, Jeong ED, et al. Main and accessory canal filling quality of a premixed calcium silicate endo-dontic sealer according to different obturation techniques[J]. Materials (Basel), 2020, 13(19): 4389.

[1]	许来俊, 张剑英, 黄紫华, 欧越美, 王祥柱. 右下颌融合磨牙7根管显微根管治疗1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2025, 43(3): 431-435.
[2]	崔晨, 权晶晶, 韦曦. 临床导向的机用镍钛预备器械研究新进展[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(6): 699-705.
[3]	陈红, 张荣华, 赵媛. 上颌侧切牙Ⅲ型双牙内陷伴根尖周炎非手术治疗1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2024, 42(3): 409-414.
[4]	蔡美娟, 向绍雯, 谢成婕, 欧阳楚红, 童方丽. 意向性牙再植治疗下颌第二磨牙根管治疗失败病例1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2023, 41(4): 471-477.
[5]	李成蹊, 宋卫健. 上颌侧切牙Ⅱ型和ⅢA型双牙内陷根管治疗1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2023, 41(2): 232-236.
[6]	张婷, 陈度, 苗雷英, 谢思静, 汤旭娜. 激光熔融数字化导板技术辅助钙化根管的治疗[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2020, 38(5): 525-531.
[7]	乐鑫, 申静, 张海峰. 比较3种微套管装置提取分离器械效果的体外实验研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2020, 38(2): 160-165.
[8]	余艺, 周昕, 郑黎薇. 乳牙根管治疗技术的进展[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2020, 38(2): 205-210.
[9]	佘雅鹄,张一祎,刘雨萱,方厂云. 牙尖覆盖厚度对全瓷高嵌体修复前磨牙应力分布影响的三维有限元分析[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2019, 37(6): 636-641.
[10]	刘彤曦,郑治国,杨健. 根尖屏障技术治疗Ⅱ型牙内陷引发慢性根尖周炎1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2019, 37(5): 568-570.
[11]	张锋,张亦文,蒋晓琼,陈豪婷,孙蕾. 左上侧切牙Ⅲ型牙内陷牙髓及牙周联合治疗1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2019, 37(4): 453-456.
[12]	强卫林,李雨轩,刘刚,张丽虹,张静洋,曹文瑾. 3种边缘设计铸瓷高嵌体修复不同程度缺损无髓磨牙的3年对比研究[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2018, 36(5): 493-497.
[13]	吴迪,张进,王伟,辛秉昌. 下颌第一恒磨牙C形根管2例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2018, 36(5): 576-579.
[14]	金玥, 陈斌, 泥艳红, 闫福华. 牙周来源的牙周牙髓联合病变和牙周牙髓共存病变患牙牙周治疗时机的系统评价[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2018, 36(2): 167-173.
[15]	孟洋, 孙德刚. 上颌第一前磨牙4根管1例[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2018, 36(2): 229-231.

3种生物陶瓷类根管封闭剂根尖封闭性的体外研究

Comparison of apical sealing ability of three bioceramic root canal sealers in vitro

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 8

参考文献 22

相关文章 15

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价