Activación sónica versus ultrasónica en la limpieza del canal radicular posterior a la preparación del lecho para poste. Estudio in vitro.
##plugins.pubIds.doi.readerDisplayName##
https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2015.050
Resumen
Objetivo: Comparar la eficacia de 3 protocolos de limpieza intraconducto utilizados previo a la cementación de pernos protésicos.Materiales y métodos: A 40 dientes anteriores se les realizó un tratamiento endodóntico en mano, mediante la técnica de condensación lateral. Luego de dos semanas, se realizó la desobturación de los mismos retirando la cantidad de gutapercha que otorgue el espacio necesario para alojar un poste. A continuación, los dientes fueron divididos aleatoriamente en grupos; superficie radicular tratada con clorhexidina (CHX) activado con ultrasonido (US) (grupo I), con clorhexidina activado con instrumental sónico (S) (grupo II), con clorhexidina sin activación (grupo III) y sin ningún tratamiento (grupo IV). Todos los dientes se fracturaron longitudinalmente obteniendo 2 secciones. Se microfotografió el tercio medio del conducto radicular con microscopio electrónico de barrido (MEB) y se midió la superficie contaminada con detritus usando ImageJ 1.47. Se analizó con test Kruskall-Wallis usando GraphPad-Prism 5.01.Resultados: La mediana del porcentaje de área contaminada del Grupo I fue 20,06%, Grupo II de 19,3%, Grupo III de 36,05% y Grupo IV de 56,45%.Conclusión: Existen diferencias significativas entre los distintos protocolos de limpieza intraconducto en la eficacia de eliminación de detritus del conducto radicular, siendo los protocolos activados más eficientes.Citas
1. Mosharraf R, Baghaei Yazdi N. Comparative evaluation of effects of different surface treatment methods on bond strength between fiber post and composite core. J Adv Prosthodont. 2012; 4(2):103–8.
2. Chang H-S, Noh Y-S, Lee Y, Min K-S, Bae J-M. Push-out bond strengths of fiber-reinforced composite posts with various resin cements according to the root level. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013; 5(3):278–86.
3. Helvacıoğlu Kıvanç B, Deniz Arısu H, Uçtaşlı MB, Okay TC. The effect of different adhesive system applications on push-out bond strengths of glass fiber posts. J Adv Prosthodon. 2013; 5(3):305–11.
4. Do Prado M, Simão RA, Gomes BPFA. Evaluation of different irrigation protocols concerning the formation of chemical smear layer. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(2):196–200.
5. Mao C-Y, Gu X-H. Effect of different irrigants on radicular dentin cleansing and resin tag formation after post space preparation. West China J Stomatol. 2010; 28(3):237–40.
6. Llena C, Forner L, Cambralla R, Lozano A. Effect of three different irrigation solutions applied by passive ultrasonic irrigation. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 40(2):143–8.
7. Cecchin D, Farina AP, Giacomin M, Vidal C de MP, Carlini-Júnior B, Ferraz CCR. Influence of chlorhexidine application time on the bond strength between fiber posts and dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40(12):2045–8.
8. Vanderford BJ, Mawhinney DB, Trenholm RA, Zeigler-Holady JC, Snyder SA. Assessment of sample preservation techniques for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and steroids in surface and drinking water. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011; 399(6):2227–34.
9. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(3):381–7.
10. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod. 2003; 29(10):674–8.
11. Ferreira RB, Alfredo E, Porto de Arruda M, Silva Sousa YTC, Sousa-Neto MD. Histological analysis of the cleaning capacity of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation in root canals. Aust Endod J. 2004; 30(2):56–8.
12. Niu LN, Luo XJ, Li GH, Bortoluzzi EA, Mao J, Chen JH, Gutmann JL, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals. J Dent. 2014; 42(8):1001–9.
13. Vansan LP, Pécora JD, Costa WF, Maia Campos G. Effects of various irrigating solutions on the cleaning of the root canal with ultrasonic instrumentation. Braz Dent J. 1990; 1(1):37–44.
14. Llena C, Cuesta C, Forner L, Mozo S, Segura J-J. The effect of passive ultrasonic activation of 2% chlorhexidine or 3% sodium hypochlorite in canal wall cleaning. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015; 7(1): 69–73.
15. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013; 39(11):1456–60.
16. Lui J-N, Kuah H-G, Chen N-N. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod. 2007; 33(4):472–5.
17. Curtis TO, Sedgley CM. Comparison of a continuous ultrasonic irrigation device and conventional needle irrigation in the removal of root canal debris. J Endod. 2012; 38(9):1261–4.
18. Gu X-H, Mao C-Y, Kern M. Effect of different irrigation on smear layer removal after post space preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(4):583–6.
19. Gu L, 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.
20. Castagna F, Rizzon P, da Rosa RA, Santini MF, Barreto MS, Duarte MA, Só MV. Effect of passive ultrassonic instrumentation as a final irrigation protocol on debris and smear layer removal--a SEM analysis. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(5):496–502.
21. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Active application of liquid etching agent improves adhesion of fibre posts to intraradicular dentine. Int Endod. 2013; 46(11):1039–45.
22. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M. Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(4):335–43.
23. De-Deus G, Reis C, Paciornik S. Critical appraisal of published smear layer-removal studies: methodological issues. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112(4):531–43.
2. Chang H-S, Noh Y-S, Lee Y, Min K-S, Bae J-M. Push-out bond strengths of fiber-reinforced composite posts with various resin cements according to the root level. J Adv Prosthodont. 2013; 5(3):278–86.
3. Helvacıoğlu Kıvanç B, Deniz Arısu H, Uçtaşlı MB, Okay TC. The effect of different adhesive system applications on push-out bond strengths of glass fiber posts. J Adv Prosthodon. 2013; 5(3):305–11.
4. Do Prado M, Simão RA, Gomes BPFA. Evaluation of different irrigation protocols concerning the formation of chemical smear layer. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(2):196–200.
5. Mao C-Y, Gu X-H. Effect of different irrigants on radicular dentin cleansing and resin tag formation after post space preparation. West China J Stomatol. 2010; 28(3):237–40.
6. Llena C, Forner L, Cambralla R, Lozano A. Effect of three different irrigation solutions applied by passive ultrasonic irrigation. Restor Dent Endod. 2015; 40(2):143–8.
7. Cecchin D, Farina AP, Giacomin M, Vidal C de MP, Carlini-Júnior B, Ferraz CCR. Influence of chlorhexidine application time on the bond strength between fiber posts and dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40(12):2045–8.
8. Vanderford BJ, Mawhinney DB, Trenholm RA, Zeigler-Holady JC, Snyder SA. Assessment of sample preservation techniques for pharmaceuticals, personal care products, and steroids in surface and drinking water. Anal Bioanal Chem. 2011; 399(6):2227–34.
9. Serafino C, Gallina G, Cumbo E, Ferrari M. Surface debris of canal walls after post space preparation in endodontically treated teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(3):381–7.
10. Sabins RA, Johnson JD, Hellstein JW. A comparison of the cleaning efficacy of short-term sonic and ultrasonic passive irrigation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod. 2003; 29(10):674–8.
11. Ferreira RB, Alfredo E, Porto de Arruda M, Silva Sousa YTC, Sousa-Neto MD. Histological analysis of the cleaning capacity of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation with ultrasonic irrigation in root canals. Aust Endod J. 2004; 30(2):56–8.
12. Niu LN, Luo XJ, Li GH, Bortoluzzi EA, Mao J, Chen JH, Gutmann JL, Pashley DH, Tay FR. Effects of different sonic activation protocols on debridement efficacy in teeth with single-rooted canals. J Dent. 2014; 42(8):1001–9.
13. Vansan LP, Pécora JD, Costa WF, Maia Campos G. Effects of various irrigating solutions on the cleaning of the root canal with ultrasonic instrumentation. Braz Dent J. 1990; 1(1):37–44.
14. Llena C, Cuesta C, Forner L, Mozo S, Segura J-J. The effect of passive ultrasonic activation of 2% chlorhexidine or 3% sodium hypochlorite in canal wall cleaning. J Clin Exp Dent. 2015; 7(1): 69–73.
15. Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013; 39(11):1456–60.
16. Lui J-N, Kuah H-G, Chen N-N. Effect of EDTA with and without surfactants or ultrasonics on removal of smear layer. J Endod. 2007; 33(4):472–5.
17. Curtis TO, Sedgley CM. Comparison of a continuous ultrasonic irrigation device and conventional needle irrigation in the removal of root canal debris. J Endod. 2012; 38(9):1261–4.
18. Gu X-H, Mao C-Y, Kern M. Effect of different irrigation on smear layer removal after post space preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(4):583–6.
19. Gu L, 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.
20. Castagna F, Rizzon P, da Rosa RA, Santini MF, Barreto MS, Duarte MA, Só MV. Effect of passive ultrassonic instrumentation as a final irrigation protocol on debris and smear layer removal--a SEM analysis. Microsc Res Tech. 2013; 76(5):496–502.
21. Scotti N, Scansetti M, Rota R, Breschi L, Mazzoni A, Pasqualini D, Berutti E. Active application of liquid etching agent improves adhesion of fibre posts to intraradicular dentine. Int Endod. 2013; 46(11):1039–45.
22. Lottanti S, Gautschi H, Sener B, Zehnder M. Effects of ethylenediaminetetraacetic, etidronic and peracetic acid irrigation on human root dentine and the smear layer. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(4):335–43.
23. De-Deus G, Reis C, Paciornik S. Critical appraisal of published smear layer-removal studies: methodological issues. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011; 112(4):531–43.
Publicado
2015-07-01
##submission.howToCite##
CARRASCO, René et al.
Activación sónica versus ultrasónica en la limpieza del canal radicular posterior a la preparación del lecho para poste. Estudio in vitro..
Journal of Oral Research, [S.l.], v. 4, n. 4, p. 255-262, july 2015.
ISSN 0719-2479.
Disponible en: <https://joralres.com/index.php/JOralRes/article/view/joralres.2015.050>. Fecha de acceso: 19 may 2024
doi: https://doi.org/10.17126/joralres.2015.050.
Número
Sección
Artículos
Palabras clave
Detritus; irrigación activada; sónico; ultrasónico; clorhexidina.
Este es un artículo de acceso abierto distribuido bajo los términos de Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0). Se permite el uso, distribución o reproducción en otros foros, siempre que se acredite al autor o autores originales y a los propietarios de los derechos de autor y se cite la publicación original en esta revista, de acuerdo con la práctica académica aceptada. No se permite ningún uso, distribución o reproducción que no cumpla con estos términos. © 2024.
