| 徐丹阳,李胜男,安 莉,李 季,牛玉梅,潘 爽.不同根管器械去除弯曲根管内充填物的效果研究[J].,2020,(7):1301-1304 |
| 不同根管器械去除弯曲根管内充填物的效果研究 |
| Evaluation of the Efficiency of Different Files in Removing Gutta-percha from Curved Root Canals During Root Canal Retreatment |
| 投稿时间：2019-07-27 修订日期：2019-08-22 |
| DOI：10.13241/j.cnki.pmb.2020.07.021 |
| 中文关键词: 根管再治疗 弯曲根管 NiTi 马尼GRP Protaper |
| 英文关键词: Root Canal Retreatment Curved canals NiTi Mani GPR Protaper |
| 基金项目:国家自然科学基金项目（81570963） |
|
| 摘要点击次数: 838 |
| 全文下载次数: 488 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 摘要 目的：比较新型旋转器械马尼GPR和ProTaper再治疗系统 、手用H锉在根管再治疗中去除弯曲根管内牙胶的清理效果。方法：选取30个弯曲度为30°的透明树脂根管模块，根管长度为17mm。使用ProTaper Next机用镍钛器械预备至30/.06，热压胶垂直加压根管充填。样本随机分为3组（n=10），用以下方法配合丁克除溶剂去除根管内充填材料，A组手用H锉、B组ProTaper再治疗系统和C组马尼GPR，记录去除充填物所用总时间。从颊舌向和近远中向2个角度拍着数码X线片，使用Image J 2X图像分析软件分析根管内充填物残留量。用天平称量推出根尖孔碎屑量。结果：ProTaper再治疗系统组根管壁充填物残留量明显多于马尼GPR组和H锉组（P<0.05）。 H锉组操作时间明显高于ProTaper再治疗系统组和马尼GPR组（P<0.05）。马尼GPR组推出根尖孔碎屑量明显少于ProTaper再治疗系统组（P<0.05）。结论：马尼再治疗锉去除根管内充填物效率优于ProTaper再治疗系统和H锉，机用镍钛器械所用时间明显少于手用器械。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| ABSTRACT Objective: To compare the cleaning effect of the new rotating instruments mani GPR and ProTaper retreatment system and hand H file in the removal of curved endodontic gum in root canal retreatment. Methods: Thirty simulated canals with a 30-degree curvature in resin blocks were instrumented up to #30/.06 with ProTaper Next NiTi rotary instruments and obturated using gutta percha and AH plus root canal sealer. The specimens were randomly divided into three groups (n=10 each). Removal of gutta-percha was performed with the following devices and techniques: Group 1 (H-files), Group 2 (ProTaper Universal Retreatment), Group 3 (Mani GPR). The retreatment time was recorded for each specimen using a stopwatch. After radiographing in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions, the amount of remaining gutta-percha in the roots was quantified using Image J 2X software. Apically extruded debris were weighted using balances. Statistical analysis was performed with one-way ANOVA test. Results: The volume of remaining filling material was significantly less in H-files and Mani GPR groups than in ProTaper Universal Retreatment group(P<0.05). The total retreatment time was significantly shorter in the ProTaper Universal Retreatment and Mani GPR groups compared with the manual group (P<0.05). Mani GPR files were associated with significantly less extruded debris than with the ProTaper Universal Retreatment (P<0.05). Conclusion: Mani GPR files left less gutta-percha and sealer than ProTaper Universal Retreatment and H-files. The NiTi rotary systems were significantly faster than the manual group in the time required for gutta-percha removal. |
|
查看全文
查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
| 关闭 |
