Comparison of clinical application of iRoot SP, GuttaFlow 2 and AH Plus root canal sealer
10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2020.07.005
- Author:
HU Jing
1
;
YANG YANG
2
;
HU Hui
3
;
ZHONG Xiaobo
2
;
QI Jin
2
Author Information
1. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences & Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education 2 Department of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University.
2. Department of Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital of Chongqing Medical University
3. Chongqing Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and Biomedical Sciences & Chongqing Municipal Key Laboratory of Oral Biomedical Engineering of Higher Education
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
iRoot SP;
GuttaFlow2;
AH Plus;
normal temperature flow root sealer;
pulp treatment;
single point filling technique;
root canal therapy;
root canal sealer;
periapical disease;
root canal filling time;
postoperative pain
- From:
Journal of Prevention and Treatment for Stomatological Diseases
2020;28(7):433-437
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
Objective: The short-term clinical effects of two kinds of normal temperature flow root sealers (the calcium silicate-based sealer iRoot SP and the siloxane-based sealer GuttaFlow2) combined with single point filling technology and a frequently-used sealing agent (AH Plus) combined with continuous wave hot tooth filling technology were evaluated.
Methods :A total of 279 teeth (656 root canals) were randomly divided into three groups: the iRoot SP group, GuttaFlow2 group and AH plus group. We recorded the filling time of each root canal, collected a digital dental film to evaluate the filling effect of each root canal, and conducted a follow-up visit one week and one month after the operation to record the incidence of pain. We used SPSS 18.0 to analyze the above data.
Results : There was no significant difference in the root canal filling effect among the three groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in the filling time between the iRoot SP group and the GuttaFlow2 group (P > 0.05), but the filling time was significantly shorter in the AH Plus group (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the postoperative pain between the iRoot SP group and the GuttaFlow2 group (P > 0.05), and the incidence of pain in the iRoot SP group and the GuttaFlow2 group was lower than that in the AH Plus group (P < 0.05).
Conclusions : GuttaFlow2 and iRoot SP combined with single point filling technology can save filling time and obtain good clinical effects compared with frequently-used hot tooth filling technology and the incidence of postoperative pain was low.
- Full text:iRoot SP、GuttaFlow2、AH Plus根管封闭剂的临床应用比较.pdf
