上海口腔医学

上海口腔医学 ›› 2021, Vol. 30 ›› Issue (6): 595-598.doi: 10.19439/j.sjos.2021.06.007

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

3种往复旋转单支镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的效果比较

杨笑晗, 杨旭   

  1. 南京医科大学第二附属医院 口腔科,江苏 南京 210003
  • 收稿日期:2020-12-23 修回日期:2021-05-14 发布日期:2022-03-09
  • 通讯作者: 杨笑晗,E-mail：yanhuang742956@163.com
  • 作者简介:杨笑晗(1983-),女,硕士,主治医师

Comparison of the clinical value of three reciprocating single nickel-titanium instruments in preparation of simulated curved root canals

YANG Xiao-han, YANG Xu   

  1. Department of Stomatology, the Second Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University. Nanjing 210003, Jiangsu Province, China
  • Received:2020-12-23 Revised:2021-05-14 Published:2022-03-09

PDF (PC)

167

摘要： 目的: 评价3种往复旋转单支镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的效果。方法: 选择115个单弯树脂模拟根管,采用随机图表法分为Reciproc组（A组,28个）、One file组（B组,29个）、Wave One组（C组,29个）和对照组（D组,29个）。按照说明书要求预备模拟根管,比较4组根管预备、树脂去除量、根管清理效果、中心定位能力及根管宽度。采用SPSS 22.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果: 4组模块质量差和弯曲度差值相比无显著差异（P>0.05）,根管预备时间差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,B组根管预备时间最短（P<0.05）。4组根管口、根管口和弯曲起始点中点2处树脂去除量相比,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。4组根管壁碎屑评分及玷污层评分差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;与A、B和D组相比,C组冠部、中部和尖部根管壁碎屑评分最低,冠部和中部根管壁玷污层评分最低（P<0.05）。4组在距离根尖孔5、6、7 mm处的中心定位能力差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。4组根管宽度差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论: Reciproc、One file和Wave One往复旋转单支镍钛器械均可保持模拟根管的原始形态,与Reciproc和Wave One相比,One file根管成形能力及清理效果较为理想。

关键词: 往复旋转, 单支锉, 切割能力, 成形能力

Abstract: PURPOSE: To explore the application value of three reciprocating single nickel-titanium instruments in preparation of simulated curved root canals. METHODS: One hundred and fifteen single-curved resin simulation root canals were selected and divided into Reciproc group (group A, 28), One file group (group B, 29), Wave One group (group C, 29) and control group (group D, 29) by random graph method. The simulated root canals were prepared according to the specifications of the instructions, root canal preparation, resin removal, root canal cleaning effect, center positioning ability and root canal width were compared. SPSS 22.0 software package was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in quality and curvature among four groups(P>0.05). The difference in root canal preparation time among the four groups was statistically significant (P<0.05), and the root canal preparation time in group B was the shortest(P<0.05). Comparison of resin removal at the root canal orifice and the midpoint of the bending start point among four groups, the difference was statistically significant(P<0.05). The root canal wall debris scores and smear layer scores in four groups were significantly different(P<0.05). Compared with group A, B and D, the root canal wall debris scores of the crown, middle and tip of group C were the lowest, the scores of smear layer on the crown and middle of the root canal wall was the lowest(P<0.05). There was no significant difference in the center positioning ability of the four groups at 5 mm, 6 mm and 7 mm from the apical foramen(P>0.05). There was no significant difference in root canal width among four groups (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Reciproc, One file and Wave One reciprocating single nickel-titanium instruments can maintain the original shape of the simulated root canal. Compared with Reciproc and Wave One, One file has better root canal shaping ability and cleaning effect.

Key words: Reciprocating rotation, Single file, Cutting ability, Forming ability

中图分类号: