论文部分内容阅读
目的比较观察机用ProTaper、手用ProTaper、K型扩孔钻及H型根管锉对根管的预备情况及进行评价。方法选取双尖牙60颗,截去牙冠,分别为A组:机用ProTaper、B组:手用ProTaper、C组:K型扩孔钻及H型根管锉预备根管,计数单根管预备时间,每组随机选取10颗,剖开,扫描电镜观察根尖1/3区情况;再把每组10颗牙行根管充填,封闭根管口,拍X线片,进行评价;然后置于2%浓度的亚甲基蓝溶液中一周,取出观察根管微渗漏情况。结果 A组、B组较C组去除根管玷污层效果好,操作时间短,根尖区微渗漏小,根充效果评价好。结论机用、手用ProTaper配合EDTA预备根管较K型扩孔钻及H型根管锉能更好的去除根管玷污层,减少工作时间,减少微渗漏,根充效果评价好。机用ProTaper、手用ProTaper根管预备效果无明显差别。
Objective To compare the preparation and evaluation of root canal using ProTaper, ProTaper, K reamer and H-type file. Methods A total of 60 canines of both canines were selected and crowned. They were Group A: ProTaper for machine use, Group B: ProTaper for hand use, Group C: K-type reamer and H-type root canal preparation for root canal preparation, Tube preparation time, each group randomly selected 10, cut open, scanning electron microscope to observe the apical area 1/3 of the situation; then each group of 10 teeth root canal filling, closing the root canal port, X-ray films were evaluated; Then placed in a 2% concentration of methylene blue solution for one week, remove the observation of microvascular root canal leakage. Results In group A and group B, the effect of root canal smear was better than that of group C, the operation time was short, the microleakage in apical area was small, and the effect of root filling was good. Conclusions Machine and hand ProTaper prepared with EDTA can better remove root canal smear layer, reduce working time and reduce microleakage than K-type reamer and H-type root canal file. The effect of root filling is good. Machine ProTaper, hand ProTaper root canal preparation effect no significant difference.