摘要
【目的】比较两种镍钛机动预备器械ProFile(PF)和Her0642(HE)在使用冲洗液时对离体根管的清理能力。【方法】32个具有双根管的离体下颌磨牙近中或远中根随机分为两组。A组29例，自来水对照组；B组30例，0.71 mol／g次氯酸钠和0.58 mol／L乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)冲洗组。每个标本的两个根管分别用PF和HE进行根管预备，沿根管弯曲平面纵向剖开牙根，扫描电镜观察根尖段、中段和冠方段的碎屑和玷污层，按5分制评分标准进行统计。【结果】同种冲洗液条件下，两种镍钛器械在根管冠段、中段及根尖段的根管清理效果无统计学意义(P＞0.05)；同种镍钛器械，B组较A组清理效果好(P＜0.05)。【结论】两种镍钛机动预备器械均不能彻底清理根管；临床上在使用镍钛机动器械预备根管的同时，应配合使用有效的根管冲冼液。
[Objective] To evaluate the efficacy of two nickel-fitanium（NiTi） rotary instruments of ProFile （PF） and Hero 642 （HE） in root canal debridement when different irrigants were used. [Methods] Thirty-two extracted mandibular molars with 2-2 type canals were randomly divided into two groups. Tap water was used as the root canal irrigant in group A （n=30）. For group B, root canal irrigation was carried out by alternating use of 0.71 mol/L Sodium hypochlorite and 0.58 mol/L EDTA （n=29）. The two canals within one root were prepared by either PF or HE instruments. Instrumentation was performed following the martufacturers＇ instructions. After preparation, the roots were split longitudinally and root canal wall was examined for debris and smear layer at the apical, mid-root and coronal levels under scanning electron microscope. A 5-step scale was applied in counting. [Results] Using the same irrigant, there was no significant difference between PF and HE groups （P 〉0.05）, while the same NiTi instruments were used, the difference between group A and group B was statistically significant （P〈 0.05）. [Conclusion] Neither rotary technique was able to completely remove debris and smear layer. Effective irrigants were recommended in root canal preparation.
出处
《中山大学学报（医学科学版）》
CAS
CSCD
北大核心
2005年第6期707-710,共4页
Journal of Sun Yat-Sen University:Medical Sciences
关键词
根管预备
镍钛机动器械
磨牙
电子显微镜
root canal preparation
nickel-titanium rotary instrument
molar
electron microscopy
