上海口腔医学 ›› 2016, Vol. 25 ›› Issue (2): 191-194.

• 论著 • 上一篇    下一篇

3种机用镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的成形能力比较

仇宁,王楚瑜,刘宇飞,于小青,薛明   

  1. 中国医科大学口腔医学院 牙体牙髓病科,辽宁 沈阳 110002
  • 收稿日期:2015-05-29 修回日期:2015-09-16 出版日期:2016-03-25 发布日期:2016-05-06
  • 作者简介:仇宁(1990-),女,硕士研究生,E-mail: 531354905@qq.com 薛明,Tel(Fax):024-22895932, E-mail: alex_xm@sina.com

Comparison of the shaping ability of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in the preparation of simulated curved root canals

QIU Ning, WANG Chu-yu, LIU Yu-fei, YU Xiao-qing, XUE Ming   

  1. Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China.
  • Received:2015-05-29 Revised:2015-09-16 Online:2016-03-25 Published:2016-05-06

摘要: 目的:比较3种机用镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的成形效果。方法:30个树脂根管随机分为3组并编号(Protaper Universal,ProTaper Next及TF Adaptive)。按厂家推荐方法预备,记录预备时间。预备前、后的树脂根管使用单反相机拍照并通过计算机软件重叠,测量距根尖孔不同位置的树脂去除量,从而得出器械偏移情况和中心定位能力。采用SPSS13.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:预备过程中未发生器械折断。ProTaper Next预备时间最短(P<0.05)。在根尖区,TF Adaptive的偏移量最小,其次是ProTaper Next (P<0.05)。 在弯曲点冠方,3组偏移量无显著差异 (P>0.05)。结论:ProTaper Next预备效率最高,ProTaper Next和TF Adaptive表现出良好的成形能力,3种机用镍钛器械均能较好地维持根管原始走向。

关键词: 成形能力, 根尖偏移, ProTaper Next, TF Adaptive

Abstract: PURPOSE: To compare the shaping ability of three rotary Ni-Ti instruments in simulated root canals. METHODS: A total of 30 simulated resin blocks were divided randomly into 3 groups: ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next and TF Adaptive. Each group consisted of 10 root canals. The preparation time and changes in canal curvature were measured. Pre- and post-instrumentation photograghs were taken by precise camera and superimposed through Photoshop. The material removed from the inner and outer canal walls at 9 points beginning at 0 mm from the foramen were measured with Image Pro Plus. Centering ability was determined accordingly. The data was analyzed with SPSS13.0 software package. RESULTS: During root canal preparation, no instruments fractured. ProTaper Next was much faster than ProTaper Universal(P<0.05). At the apical curvature, transportation was the least with TF Adaptive, followed by Protaper Next (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in 3 groups with respect to coronal curvature transportation (P>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, ProTaper Next was the most efficient instrument. TF Adaptive and Protaper Next showed better shaping ability. In general, all the instruments respected original canal curvature well and were safe to be used.

Key words: Shaping ability, Apical transportation, ProTaper Next, TF Adaptive

中图分类号: