http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
Poletto, Daniel,Poletto, Ana Claudia,Cavalaro, Andressa,Machado, Ricardo,Cosme-Silva, Leopoldo,Garbelini, Cassia Cilene Dezan,Hoeppner, Marcio Grama The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2017 Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Vol.42 No.4
Objectives: This study evaluated smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted uniradicular human mandibular premolars with single canals were treated endodontically. The cervical and middle thirds of the fillings were then removed, and the specimens were divided into 9 groups: G1, saline solution (NaCl); G2, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); G3, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX); G4, 11.5% polyacrylic acid (PAA); G5, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). For the groups 6, 7, 8, and 9, the same solutions used in the groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were used, respectively, but activated with ultrasonic activation. Afterwards, the roots were analyzed by a score considering the images obtained from a scanning electron microscope. Results: EDTA achieved the best performance compared with the other solutions evaluated regardless of the irrigation method (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Ultrasonic activation did not significantly influence smear layer removal.
Daniel Poletto,Ana Claudia Poletto,Andressa Cavalaro,Ricardo Machado,Leopoldo Cosme-Silva,Cássia Cilene Dezan Garbelini,Márcio Grama Hoeppner 대한치과보존학회 2017 Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics Vol.42 No.4
Objectives: This study evaluated smear layer removal by different chemical solutions used with or without ultrasonic activation after post preparation. Materials and Methods: Forty-five extracted uniradicular human mandibular premolars with single canals were treated endodontically. The cervical and middle thirds of the fillings were then removed, and the specimens were divided into 9 groups: G1, saline solution (NaCl); G2, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl); G3, 2% chlorhexidine (CHX); G4, 11.5% polyacrylic acid (PAA); G5, 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). For the groups 6, 7, 8, and 9, the same solutions used in the groups 2, 3, 4, and 5 were used, respectively, but activated with ultrasonic activation. Afterwards, the roots were analyzed by a score considering the images obtained from a scanning electron microscope. Results: EDTA achieved the best performance compared with the other solutions evaluated regardless of the irrigation method (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Ultrasonic activation did not significantly influence smear layer removal.