中华老年口腔医学杂志
中華老年口腔醫學雜誌
중화노년구강의학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF GERIATRIC DENTISTRY
2014年
3期
149-152
,共4页
根管再治疗%根管预备%老年人%疼痛
根管再治療%根管預備%老年人%疼痛
근관재치료%근관예비%노년인%동통
endodontic retreatment%root canal preparation%elderly patients%pain
目的：对比ProTaper镍钛系统冠向下预备法和采用不锈钢手用锉逐步后退技术两种根管预备方法对老年人根管再治疗术后疼痛的影响。方法：选择106颗首次根管治疗失败再治疗患牙随机分为实验组与对照组，实验组使用ProTaper Universal再治疗器械(D1、 D2、 D3)去除根管内充填物后， ProTaper(F1、 F2、 F3)进行根管预备，对照组采用不锈钢手用锉去除牙胶后以逐步后退法预备根管，观察两组术后1h、6h、12h、24h、48h、7d VAS自评分值,24h与7d临床评定的疼痛发生率。结果：两组术后疼痛在6h出现,12h达到峰值，此后呈下降趋势，7d时已完全缓解；实验组在疼痛发生期间(6、12、24、48h 4个时间点)VAS自评分值均低于对照组，差异有统计学意义(P值分别为0.000、0.000、0.000、0.004， P<0.05)；24h临床评定疼痛发生率实验组为11.1%，对照组为34.6%，差异有统计学意义(P=0.042， P<0.05)；7d时临床评定疼痛发生率实验组为1.85%，对照组为3.85%，差异无统计学意义(P=0.807， P<0.05)。结论：两种根管预备方法均会引起再治疗术后疼痛，使用ProTaper镍钛系统能有效降低老年人根管再治疗术后疼痛的发生。
目的：對比ProTaper鎳鈦繫統冠嚮下預備法和採用不鏽鋼手用銼逐步後退技術兩種根管預備方法對老年人根管再治療術後疼痛的影響。方法：選擇106顆首次根管治療失敗再治療患牙隨機分為實驗組與對照組，實驗組使用ProTaper Universal再治療器械(D1、 D2、 D3)去除根管內充填物後， ProTaper(F1、 F2、 F3)進行根管預備，對照組採用不鏽鋼手用銼去除牙膠後以逐步後退法預備根管，觀察兩組術後1h、6h、12h、24h、48h、7d VAS自評分值,24h與7d臨床評定的疼痛髮生率。結果：兩組術後疼痛在6h齣現,12h達到峰值，此後呈下降趨勢，7d時已完全緩解；實驗組在疼痛髮生期間(6、12、24、48h 4箇時間點)VAS自評分值均低于對照組，差異有統計學意義(P值分彆為0.000、0.000、0.000、0.004， P<0.05)；24h臨床評定疼痛髮生率實驗組為11.1%，對照組為34.6%，差異有統計學意義(P=0.042， P<0.05)；7d時臨床評定疼痛髮生率實驗組為1.85%，對照組為3.85%，差異無統計學意義(P=0.807， P<0.05)。結論：兩種根管預備方法均會引起再治療術後疼痛，使用ProTaper鎳鈦繫統能有效降低老年人根管再治療術後疼痛的髮生。
목적：대비ProTaper얼태계통관향하예비법화채용불수강수용촤축보후퇴기술량충근관예비방법대노년인근관재치료술후동통적영향。방법：선택106과수차근관치료실패재치료환아수궤분위실험조여대조조，실험조사용ProTaper Universal재치료기계(D1、 D2、 D3)거제근관내충전물후， ProTaper(F1、 F2、 F3)진행근관예비，대조조채용불수강수용촤거제아효후이축보후퇴법예비근관，관찰량조술후1h、6h、12h、24h、48h、7d VAS자평분치,24h여7d림상평정적동통발생솔。결과：량조술후동통재6h출현,12h체도봉치，차후정하강추세，7d시이완전완해；실험조재동통발생기간(6、12、24、48h 4개시간점)VAS자평분치균저우대조조，차이유통계학의의(P치분별위0.000、0.000、0.000、0.004， P<0.05)；24h림상평정동통발생솔실험조위11.1%，대조조위34.6%，차이유통계학의의(P=0.042， P<0.05)；7d시림상평정동통발생솔실험조위1.85%，대조조위3.85%，차이무통계학의의(P=0.807， P<0.05)。결론：량충근관예비방법균회인기재치료술후동통，사용ProTaper얼태계통능유효강저노년인근관재치료술후동통적발생。
Objective:To assess effects of root canal preparation via Protaper Nickel-Titanium system using crown-down technique and stainless steel hand files with step-back technique on postoperative pain of endodontic retreatment in elderly patients. Methods:A total of 106 molars for retreatment were randomly divided into experimental group and control group. Molars in experimental group were treated with ProTper Universal instruments, while stainless steel instruments were used in the control group. Visual analogue scale (VAS) was used to measure pain 1h, 6h, 12h, 24h, 48h, 7 days after endodontic retreatment, and clinical pain assessment 24h and 7d after endodontic retreatment were also performed in both groups. Results:VAS analysis showed that postoperative pain occured after 6h, peaked after 12h and completely disappeared after 7d. The values of VAS in experimental group were lower than the other group, and the difference was statistically significant (P<0.05). The value of clinical pain assessment after 24h of experimental group was 11.1% while the control group 34.6%, and the difference was also statistically significant (P<0.05), while no significant differences were found on day 7 (P=0.807, P<0.05). The value of clinical pain assessment was 1.85% and 3.85%, respectively. Conclusion: Both methods of endodontic retreatment may cause?postoperative pain, however, it can be effectively alleviated via ProTaper Universal instruments treatment.
