【作者】 曹鑫； 吴颖芳； Kinley Dem； 戴卓； 朱冰玉； 喻晖乔；

【Author】 Cao xin;Wu Yingfang;Kinley Dem;Dai Zhuo;Zhu Bingyu;Yu Huiqiao;Stomatological Hospital of Changsha;Stomatological center,Xiangya Hospital,Central South University;Changsha Medical University;

【机构】 长沙市口腔医院； 中南大学湘雅医院口腔医学中心； 长沙医学院；

【摘要】 目的:比较AH Plus、GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal 3种根管封闭剂的抗菌活性和根尖封闭性能。方法:1.采用琼脂扩散实验(Agar diffusion test,ADT)和直接接触实验(Direct Contact Test,DCT)检测AH Plus、GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal对粪肠球菌和白色念珠菌的抗菌作用。2.采用染料渗漏法结合透明牙技术检测AH Plus、GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal的根尖封闭能力。结果:1.在ADT中,仅AH Plus周围形成抑菌环,直径为(2.25±0.95)mm、(2.03±0.50)mm;GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal周围未见抑菌环形成。在DCT中,AH Plus组与对照组比较,仅20min和1d时有统计学差异(P<0.05),其他时间点均无统计学差异(P>0.05);GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal组与对照组比较,各时间点均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。2.AH Plus组在7d、14d时染料渗入平均长度分别为(3.51±0.48)mm、(5.43±1.57)mm,GuttaFlow 2组在7d、14d时染料渗入平均长度分别为(2.20±0.27)mm、(3.47±0.77)mm,GuttaFlow Bioseal组在7d、14d时染料渗入平均长度分别为(1.93±0.34)mm、(2.89±1.03)mm。其中AH Plus组在两个时间点均与GuttaFlow 2组、GuttaFlow Bioseal组间存在统计学差异(P<0.05),而GuttaFlow 2组、GuttaFlow Bioseal组在两个时间点均无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论:1.AH Plus仅在混合时间≦1d时对粪肠球菌、白色念珠菌具有抗菌活性,而GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal对粪肠球菌、白色念珠菌无明显抗菌活性。2.GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal的根尖封闭性能优于AH Plus,而GuttaFlow 2、GuttaFlow Bioseal的根尖封闭性能无明显差异。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective:Compare the antibacterial activity and the apical sealing ability of AH Plus,GuttaFlow 2,and GuttaFlow Bioseal.Methods:1.Agar diffusion test(ADT) and direct contact test(DCT) were used to detect the antibacterial effects of AH Plus,GuttaFlow 2,GuttaFlow Bioseal on Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans.2.The apical sealing ability of AH Plus,GuttaFlow 2 and GuttaFlow Bioseal was tested by dye leakage method combined with transparent tooth technique.Results:1.In ADT,only the inhibition zone was formed around AH Plus,and the diameter was(2.25±0.95) mm and(2.03±0.50) mm.No inhibition zone was formed around group GuttaFlow 2 and GuttaFlow Bioseal.In the DCT,there was a statistical difference between the A group and the control group at only 20 min and 1 d(P<0.05),and there was no significant difference at other time points(P>0.05).The B and C groups were compared with the control group,there was no significant difference at each time point(P>0.05).2.The average length of dye penetration in the AH Plus group was(3.51±0.48) mm and(5.43±1.57) mm at 7 d and 14 d,respectively.The average length of dye penetration in the GuttaFlow 2 group at 7 d and 14 d was(2.20±0.27) mm and(3.47±0.77) mm,and the average length of dye penetration in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group at 7 d and 14 d was(1.93±0.34) mm and(2.89±1.03) mm,respectively.There were statistical differences between the AH Plus group and the GuttaFlow 2 group and the GuttaFlow Bioseal group at both time points(P <0.05),while the GuttaFlow 2 group and the GuttaFlow Bioseal group were not statistically different at both time points(P>0.05).Conclusion:1.AH Plus has antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans only at the mixing time of 1 d,while GuttaFlow 2 and GuttaFlow Bioseal have no obvious antimicrobial activity against Enterococcus faecalis and Candida albicans.2.The apical sealing ability of GuttaFlow 2 and GuttaFlow Bioseal was better than that of AH Plus,but the apical sealing ability of GuttaFlow 2 and GuttaFlow Bioseal had no significant difference.更多还原