摘要
目的比较观察机用ProTaper、手用ProTaper、K型扩孔钻及H型根管锉对根管的预备情况及进行评价。方法选取双尖牙60颗,截去牙冠,分别为A组:机用ProTaper、B组:手用ProTaper、C组:K型扩孔钻及H型根管锉预备根管,计数单根管预备时间,每组随机选取10颗,剖开,扫描电镜观察根尖1/3区情况;再把每组10颗牙行根管充填,封闭根管口,拍X线片,进行评价;然后置于2%浓度的亚甲基蓝溶液中一周,取出观察根管微渗漏情况。结果 A组、B组较C组去除根管玷污层效果好,操作时间短,根尖区微渗漏小,根充效果评价好。结论机用、手用ProTaper配合EDTA预备根管较K型扩孔钻及H型根管锉能更好的去除根管玷污层,减少工作时间,减少微渗漏,根充效果评价好。机用ProTaper、手用ProTaper根管预备效果无明显差别。
Objective To observe the efficiency of root canal preparation by rotary ProTaper, manual ProTaper, K-type reamer and Hedstroem file. Methods Choose 60 bicuspid teeth and cut off their crowns. Group A： prepare root canal with rotary ProTaper, Group B： prepare root canal with manual ProTaper, Group C： prepare root canal with K-type reamer and Hedstroem file. Record the time of root canal preparation for each tooth, then randomly select 10 teeth from each group, open the pulp, undergo the scanning electron microscopic observation of 1/3 root apex; then conduct root canal filling for 10 teeth of each group and seal the root canal orifice, take X-ray to evaluate; then put them into 2% methylene blue solution for a week, and observe the root canal microleakage. Results Group A and Group B have better effects than Group C in removing smear layer with shorter operation time, less apical microleakage and better root canal filling evaluation. Conclusion Rather than using K-type reamer and Hedstroem file, preparation of the root canal by using Engine-driven, manual ProTaper with EDTA is better in removing the smear layer, saving working time, reducing the microleakage, and has a better filling evaluation. There is no significant difference in root canal preparation by using rotary ProPaper and manual ProTaper.
出处
《现代口腔医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2013年第3期133-136,共4页
Journal of Modern Stomatology
