论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较常温流动牙胶根管充填术与冷牙胶侧方加压根管充填术的临床疗效。方法:选择67例共100个恒牙,随机分成2组分别用GuttaF1ow常温流动牙胶(治疗组)及冷牙胶侧方加压根管充填(对照组),术后对照两种方法操作时间、术后疼痛率、根管充填质量、1年后复查疗效。结果:治疗组操作疗时间、术后疼痛率明显低于对照组,两组差异有显著性(P<0.01)。根管充填质量,1年后复查疗效对比两组无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论:GuttaFlow常温流动牙胶根管充填临床疗效优于冷牙胶侧方加压根管充填术。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the clinical efficacy of orthodontic gingiva root canal filling with cold gingiva lateral compression root canal filling. Methods: A total of 100 permanent teeth of 67 cases were selected and randomly divided into 2 groups: GuttaF1ow normal-temperature flow gutta-percha (treatment group) and cold dentin lateral compression root canal filling (control group) , Postoperative pain rate, root canal filling quality, 1 year after the review of efficacy. Results: The operation time and the postoperative pain rate in the treatment group were significantly lower than those in the control group (P <0.01). Root canal filling quality, 1 year after the review of the efficacy of no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). Conclusion: The clinical efficacy of GuttaFlow at room temperature is better than that of cold dentin lateral compression root canal filling.