论文部分内容阅读
目的:评价不锈钢K锉、机用ProTaper和机用Safe Sider预备磨牙弯曲根管的临床疗效。方法:选取因牙髓炎或根尖周炎需要进行根管治疗的磨牙180颗(413个根管),随机分为K-file组、ProTaper组和Safe Sider组,每组60颗牙。分别用不锈钢K锉、机用ProTaper和机用Safe Sider进行根管预备。三组均采用冷牙胶侧方加压技术充填根管。记录三组病例根管预备时间和术后并发症发生情况,根据治疗前、中、后的X线片评价根管预备和充填效果。结果:机用ProTaper、机用Safe Sider分别与不锈钢K锉在根管预备时间、根管成形以及充填效果方面在统计学上有显著性差异(P﹤0.05),机用ProTaper与机用Safe Sider在上述方面无显著性差异(P﹥0.05)。结论:机用ProTaper和机用Safe Sider预备磨牙弯曲根管时能较好地保持原有根管形态,省时省力,术后反应少。
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of stainless steel K-file, machine ProTaper and machine Safe Sider premolar curved root canal. Methods: 180 teeth (413 root canal) with root canal treatment for pulpitis or periapical periodontitis were randomly divided into K-file group, ProTaper group and Safe Sider group with 60 teeth in each group. Root canal preparation was performed with stainless steel K-file, machine ProTaper and machine Safe Sider respectively. Three groups were using cold teethed side pressure filling technology root canal. The preparation time and postoperative complications of three groups of patients were recorded, and the effect of root canal preparation and filling was evaluated according to X-ray before, during and after treatment. Results: The mechanical ProTaper and machine Safe Sider were significantly different from the stainless steel K-file in root canal preparation time, root canal formation and filling effect (P <0.05) No significant difference in the above aspects (P> 0.05). Conclusion: ProTaper for machine and Safe Sider for machine prefabricated tooth root canal can keep the original root canal morphology better, save time and labor and less postoperative reaction.