摘要
目的评价两种根管冲洗方法联合不同根管冲洗剂杀灭感染根管内细菌的效果及临床疗效。方法将80例根尖周病患者共80颗患牙随机分为4组,每组各20颗患牙,使用Protaper系统进行根管预备,分别进行根管冲洗:A组1%NaClO+17%EDTA超声冲洗,B组1%NaClO+17%EDTA常规冲洗,C组3%H2O2+0.9%NS超声冲洗,D组3%H2O2+0.9%NS常规冲洗。根管预备前后分别取样进行细菌培养,对菌落计数进行统计。6月后对患者进行临床疗效评价。结果各组根管预备前后厌氧菌菌落计数经配对t检验,其差异具有统计学意义(P<0.01);而菌落计数差值经方差分析,超声组(A、C组)与常规组(B、D组)之间,A、B组与C组之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但A与B组之间差异没有统计学意义(P>0.05)。方差分析愈合数,超声组(A、C组)较常规组(B、D组)之间差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论超声冲洗技术与1%NaClO+17%EDTA联合使用更能有效杀灭感染根管内的细菌,提高临床治疗效果。
Objective To evaluate the antimicrobial effect and the curative effect of 2 different root canal irrigation methods combined with different irrigations. Methods 80 patients with 80 teeth with periapical disease were randomly assigned to 4 groups, 20 for each group. The samples were mechanically prepared with Protaper, then irrigated respectively as following： （A） ultrasonic irrigation with 1% NaCIO ＋ 17% EDTA, （B） syringe irrigation with 1% NaCIO ＋ 17% EDTA, （C） ultrasonic irrigation with 3% H202 ＋ 0.9% NS, （D） syringe irrigation with 3% H2O2 ＋ 0.9% NS. Bacterial culture was taken before and after the treatment, while the curative effect evaluation has been taken 6 months later. Results A significant decrease in the number of CFUs was observed after treatment in all the groups. Additionally, ultrasonic groups had a significantly higher antimicrobial efficacy as measured by the number of CFUs than the control groups （P 〈0.05）. No differences were observed between the antimicrobial properties of ultrasonic groups with 1% NaCIO ＋ 17% EDTA or 3% H2O2 ＋ 0.9% NS （P 〉0.05）. According to the variance analysis, treatment of ultrasonic groups had improved the curative effect rather than the control groups （P 〈0.05）. Conclusions Ultrasonic root canal irrigation with 1% NaCIO ＋ 17% EDTA is much more effective in eluminating bacterial in the infected root canal, which can improve the clinical result.
出处
《临床医学工程》
2012年第10期1686-1688,共3页
Clinical Medicine & Engineering
基金
广东省科技计划项目(2010B031100020)
关键词
根管冲洗
超声冲洗
细菌培养
临床疗效评价
Root canal irrigation
Ultrasonic irrigation
Bacterial culture
Clinical effect evaluation
