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。
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 Ni Ti 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 2 X 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). Conclusions: Mani GPR files left less gutta-percha and sealer than ProTaper Universal Retreatment and H-files. The Ni Ti rotary systems were significantly faster than the manual group in the time required for gutta-percha removal.
作者
徐丹阳
李胜男
安莉
李季
牛玉梅
潘爽
XU Dan-yang;LI Sheng-nan;AN Li;LI Ji;NIU Yu-mei;PAN Shpang(Department of Dental Endodontics,Stomatology School,Harbin Medical University,Harbin,Heilongjiang,150001,China)
出处
《现代生物医学进展》
CAS
2020年第7期1301-1304,1321,共5页
Progress in Modern Biomedicine
基金
国家自然科学基金项目(81570963)。
