摘要
目的对比再治疗旋转镍钛器械与手用不锈钢器械去除根充物的效果。方法 54颗上切牙根管充填后分为三组(n=18),用不同方法去除根充物:A组:手用不锈钢锉+氯仿组;B组:ProTaper再治疗旋转镍钛组,不使用氯仿;C组:ProTaper+氯仿组。评价操作时间、氯仿用量及根充物残留。结果 B、C组操作时间短于A组(P<0.05),使用氯仿对总操作时间无影响(P>0.05),C组氯仿用量明显少于A组(P<0.01)。三组根充物总残留量无差异(P>0.05)。结论使用旋转镍钛器械去除根充物,可减少氯仿用量,缩短操作时间。
Objective To evaluate the efficacy of the ProTaper rotary retreatment files and stainless hand instruments for gutta-percha （GP） removal from root canals. Methods Fifty-four extracted maxillary single-rooted incisor teeth with straight canals were randomly distributed into three groups （n=18）. They were instrumented and obturated with laterally condensed gutta-percha technique using ZOE as the sealer. Removal of gutta-percha was performed as following： Group A - stainless hand file with chloroform; Group B -ProTaper rotary retreatment system without chloroform; Group C - ProTaper rotary retreatment system with chloroform. The time of the removal GP/sealer and the volume of chloroform used were recorded. The amount of debris remaining within the root canals was evaluated using bucca-lingually and mesio-distally radiographic technique. Results The mean time of retreatment in group B and C were significantly shorter than group A （P〈0.05）. The volume of chloroform in group C was significantly less than group A （P〈0.01）. There was no significant difference between the mean score of remaining debris in the three groups （P〉 0.05）. However, use of chloroform or not did not influence the total working time. Conclusion ProTaper rotary retreatment files proved to be faster than hand instruments in removing GP/sealer and reduced usage of chloroform. Under this experimental conditions, the investigated instruments cannot remove the root filling material completely.
出处
《现代口腔医学杂志》
CAS
CSCD
2012年第4期222-226,共5页
Journal of Modern Stomatology
关键词
根管再治疗
旋转镍钛锉
牙胶
Root canal retreatment Rotary nickel-titanium instruments Gutta-percha removal
