目的:对比探讨iRoot SP与AH-PLUS作为根尖封闭剂近期的疼痛反应及远期临床疗效。方法:通过随机原则选取2017年8月至2018年12月90例慢性根尖周炎患者的96 颗单根管恒牙作为本研究对象,常规根管预备后根据根尖封闭剂使用的不同分为iRoot SP组和AH-PLUS组,对比术后1周两组材料疼痛反应,同时比较术后6个月两种临床疗效。结果:AH-PLUS组术后1周疼痛状况稍劣于iRoot SP组,两组数据比较差异有统计学意义(P＜0.05);iRoot SP组恰填率高于AH-PLUS组(P＜0.05);根管充填术后6个月,两组患者的治疗效果数据比较差异具有统计学意义(P＜0.05),iRoot SP组成功率高于AH-PLUS组(P＜0.05)。结论:术后1周iRoot SP对根尖周组织疼痛刺激较轻,填充效果更好,长期疗效显著,为iRoot SP广泛应用于临床提供了一定的依据。
Objective: To compare the short-term pain response and long-term clinical efficacy of iRoot SP and AH-PLUS as apical sealers. Methods: A total of 96 single-rooted permanent teeth of 90 patients with chronic periapical periodontitis from August 2017 to December 2018 were randomly selected as the study objects. After routine preparation of root canal, they were divided into the iRoot SP group and AH-PLUS group based on different apical sealers they used. The pain response of the two groups 1 week after surgery was compared, and clinical efficacy 6 months after surgery of the two groups were compared. Results: The pain degree in the AH-PLUS group was slightly higher than that in iRoot SP group 1 week after surgery, and the difference was statistically significant (P＜0.05). The accurate filling rate in the iRoot SP group was higher than that in the AH-PLUS group (P＜0.05). Six months after root canal filling, there was a statistically significant difference between the two groups in the treatment effect (P＜0.05). The success rate of the iRoot SP group was higher than that of the AH-PLUS group (P＜0.05). Conclusion: iRoot SP has less pain stimulation to periapical tissues 1 week after surgery, better filling effect and long-term clinical efficacy than the AH-PLUS, it could be widely used in clinical practice.
[1] 兰宁宁. AH Plus糊剂超填对牙髓炎根管治疗术后短期疗效的影响[J]. 中国现代药物应用, 2019, 13(21): 27-28.
[2] Wu LD, Xue KY, Hu G, et al. Effects of iRoot SP on osteogenic differentiation of human stem cells from apical papilla [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2021, 21(1): 407.
[3] 申元源. iRoot SP和AH Plus糊剂在口腔内科中的应用效果比较分析[J]. 中国社区医师, 2020, 36(4): 67-67, 69.
[4] Liapis D, de Bruyne MAA, de Moor RJG, et al. Postoperative pain after ultrasonically and laser‐activated irrigation during root canal treatment: a randomized clinical trial[J]. Int Endod J, 2021, 54(7): 1037-1050.
[5] 冯劲松. Vitapex糊剂治疗乳牙窦道型慢性根尖周炎的疗效[J]. 江苏医药, 2017, 43(24): 1821-1822.
[6] 四川大学华西口腔医院牙体牙髓病科. 根管治疗技术规范与疗效评价标准[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2004, 22(3): 196-197.
[7] 樊明文. 牙体牙髓病学. 4版[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2012: 7.
[8] Carrotte PV. A clinical guide to endodontics - update part 1[J]. Br Dent J, 2009, 206(2): 79-84.
[9] 李莹. iRoot SP、AH Plus及Vitapex在扁形根管根尖封闭中的效果对比[J]. 中国现代药物应用, 2020, 14(24): 96-98.
[10] 王媛媛, 曹思远. GuttaFlow 2与AH-Plus两种根管封闭剂根尖封闭性能的实验研究[J]. 中国实用医药, 2020, 15(29): 62-64.
[11] 胡西娜尔·艾尼瓦尔, 叶琴, 周瑾. iRoot SP单尖法充填用于慢性根尖周炎后牙行一次法根管治疗的临床疗效[J]. 临床口腔医学杂志, 2018, 34(9): 543-545.
[12] 王静, 李秀娥, 奚擎, 等. iRoot SP和AH Plus糊剂用于根管治疗效果的Meta分析[J]. 中国实用口腔科杂志, 2017, 10(9): 544-549.
[13] Amanda B, Suprastiwi E, Usman M. Comparison of apical leakage in root canal obturation using bioceramic and polydimethylsiloxane sealer (In Vitro)[J]. Open J Stomatol, 2018, 8(1): 24-34.
[14] Wang YH, Liu SY, Dong YM. In vitro study of dentinal tubule penetration and filling quality of bioceramic sealer[J]. PLoS One, 2018, 13(2): e0192248.
[15] 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.
