口腔疾病防治 ›› 2019, Vol. 27 ›› Issue (3): 167-171.DOI: 10.12016/j.issn.2096-1456.2019.03.005

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

不同镍钛器械结合超声荡洗行根管预备的效果比较

张笑维,梁景平(),冉淑君   

  1. 上海交通大学医学院附属第九人民医院牙体牙髓科 上海市口腔医学研究所 上海市口腔医学重点实验室国家口腔疾病临床研究中心,上海(200011)
  • 收稿日期:2018-07-10 修回日期:2018-09-21 出版日期:2019-03-20 发布日期:2019-03-20
  • 通讯作者: 梁景平
  • 作者简介:张笑维,住院医师,硕士,Email:zhangxiaowei021@126.com
  • 基金资助:
    国家自然科学基金项目(81800953)

A comparison of the effect of different nickel-titanium instruments combined with ultrasonic irrigation on root canal preparation

ZHANG Xiaowei,LIANG Jingping(),RAN Shujun   

  1. Department of Endodontics, Ninth People′s Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai Key Laboratory of Stomatology & Shanghai Research Institute of Stomatology, National Clinical Research Center of Stomatology, Shanghai 200011, China
  • Received:2018-07-10 Revised:2018-09-21 Online:2019-03-20 Published:2019-03-20
  • Contact: Jingping LIANG

摘要:

目的 比较在根管预备过程中4种镍钛器械Twisted File(TF)、Twisted File Adaptive(TFA)、ProTaper、ProTaper Next结合超声荡洗去除根管壁牙体组织的能力、推出根尖孔外碎屑量,为临床上根管预备器械的选择提供实验基础。方法 将40颗单根管离体下颌前磨牙随机分为4组,每组10颗。分别使用4种根管预备器械对离体牙进行根管预备,并结合超声荡洗。A组:TF预备+超声荡洗;B组:TFA预备+超声荡洗;C组:ProTaper预备+超声荡洗;D组:ProTaper Next预备+超声荡洗。收集从根尖孔溢出的碎屑及冲洗液,称重计算各组牙体组织去除量、推出根尖孔的碎屑量。结果 A组牙体组织去除量为(20.5 ± 2.0)mg、B组为(17.8 ± 4.2)mg、C组为(20.8 ± 3.9)mg、D组为(16.5 ± 2.2)mg。结合超声荡洗时,TF和ProTaper比ProTaper Next对牙体组织的去除量更大(P<0.05)。4组推出根尖孔的碎屑量(χ 2=4.057,P=0.255)差异无统计学意义。结论 结合超声荡洗时,TF和ProTaper相比于ProTaper Next去除牙体组织的能力更强。4种镍钛器械结合超声荡洗预备根管时,推出根尖孔的碎屑量差异无统计学意义。

关键词: 镍钛器械, ProTaper, Twisted File, 超声荡洗, 根管治疗, 牙本质, 碎屑

Abstract:

Objective To compare the removal efficiency and the amounts of apically extruded debris using Twisted File (TF), Twisted File Adaptive (TFA), ProTaper, and ProTaper Next combined with ultrasonic irrigation and to provide an experimental basis for the selection of root canal instrumentation in the clinic.Methods Forty mandibular premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=10 teeth per group). The canals were cut using a Twisted File, Twisted File Adaptive, ProTaper, or ProTaper Next nickel-titanium instrument. The canals were irrigated with ultrasonic irrigation. The apically extruded debris were collected in preweighted Eppendorf tubes. The amount of dental tissue removed and extruded debris were assessed with an electronic balance.Results The amount of tooth tissue removed in groups A, B, C and D was 20.5 ± 2.0 mg, 17.8 ± 4.2 mg, 20.8 ± 3.9 mg and 16.5 ± 2.2 mg, respectively. Combined with ultrasonic irrigation, the Twisted File and ProTaper had a better removal efficiency than the ProTaper Next(P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the amount of extruded debris (χ2=4.057, P=0.255) among four groups.Conclusion The Twisted File and ProTaper had a better removal efficiency than the ProTaper Next combined with ultrasonic irrigation. There was no significant difference in the amount of extruded debris using four Nickel-titanium instruments combined with ultrasonic irrigation.

Key words: Nickel-titanium instruments, ProTaper, Twisted File, Ultrasonic irrigation, Root canal treatment, Dentin, Apical extrusion

中图分类号: