牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志
牙體牙髓牙週病學雜誌
아체아수아주병학잡지
CHINESE JOURNAL OF CONSERVATIVE DENTISTRY
2015年
2期
110-112,83
,共4页
锥形束 CT%镍钛根管锉%根管成形能力
錐形束 CT%鎳鈦根管銼%根管成形能力
추형속 CT%얼태근관촤%근관성형능력
CBCT%nickel-titanium instrument%shaping ability
目的:应用锥形束 CT 评价 Twisted File(TF)和 ProTaper 两种机用镍钛锉的根管成形效果。方法:选择符合标准的离体牙41个(共60个单根管牙根),按弯曲度分为轻度弯曲(0°~15°)组和重度弯曲(16°~35°)组(n =30):每个大组再随机分为两个亚组(TF 组和 ProTaper 组,n =15)。机用 TF 锉和 ProTaper锉分别预备根管,预备前后进行 CBCT 扫描,测量距根尖2、4、6 mm 处根管近、远中侧的根管壁厚度,计算各处的轴中心率,比较其差异。结果:TF 和 ProTaper 机用镍钛根管锉中心定位能力间差异均无统计学意义(P >0.05),TF 预备轻度弯曲根管时的中心定位能力优于重度弯曲根管(P <0.05);ProTaper 预备轻度弯曲根管在距根尖2、4 mm 处的中心定位能力优于重度弯曲根管(P <0.05),而6 mm 处差异无统计学意义(P >0.05)。结论:两种机用镍钛根管锉均有较好的中心定位能力,牙根弯曲度<15°时的中心定位能力优于>15°者。
目的:應用錐形束 CT 評價 Twisted File(TF)和 ProTaper 兩種機用鎳鈦銼的根管成形效果。方法:選擇符閤標準的離體牙41箇(共60箇單根管牙根),按彎麯度分為輕度彎麯(0°~15°)組和重度彎麯(16°~35°)組(n =30):每箇大組再隨機分為兩箇亞組(TF 組和 ProTaper 組,n =15)。機用 TF 銼和 ProTaper銼分彆預備根管,預備前後進行 CBCT 掃描,測量距根尖2、4、6 mm 處根管近、遠中側的根管壁厚度,計算各處的軸中心率,比較其差異。結果:TF 和 ProTaper 機用鎳鈦根管銼中心定位能力間差異均無統計學意義(P >0.05),TF 預備輕度彎麯根管時的中心定位能力優于重度彎麯根管(P <0.05);ProTaper 預備輕度彎麯根管在距根尖2、4 mm 處的中心定位能力優于重度彎麯根管(P <0.05),而6 mm 處差異無統計學意義(P >0.05)。結論:兩種機用鎳鈦根管銼均有較好的中心定位能力,牙根彎麯度<15°時的中心定位能力優于>15°者。
목적:응용추형속 CT 평개 Twisted File(TF)화 ProTaper 량충궤용얼태촤적근관성형효과。방법:선택부합표준적리체아41개(공60개단근관아근),안만곡도분위경도만곡(0°~15°)조화중도만곡(16°~35°)조(n =30):매개대조재수궤분위량개아조(TF 조화 ProTaper 조,n =15)。궤용 TF 촤화 ProTaper촤분별예비근관,예비전후진행 CBCT 소묘,측량거근첨2、4、6 mm 처근관근、원중측적근관벽후도,계산각처적축중심솔,비교기차이。결과:TF 화 ProTaper 궤용얼태근관촤중심정위능력간차이균무통계학의의(P >0.05),TF 예비경도만곡근관시적중심정위능력우우중도만곡근관(P <0.05);ProTaper 예비경도만곡근관재거근첨2、4 mm 처적중심정위능력우우중도만곡근관(P <0.05),이6 mm 처차이무통계학의의(P >0.05)。결론:량충궤용얼태근관촤균유교호적중심정위능력,아근만곡도<15°시적중심정위능력우우>15°자。
AIM:To evaluate the shaping ability of Twisted File(TF)rotary system and ProTaper by CBCT. METHODS:60 single root canals in 41 extracted teeth were divided into 2 groups according to the canal curvature:0°~15°group and 16°~35°group.Then,each group was divided into two subsets and prepared by TF and ProTaper respectively.Canals were scanned by CBCT scanner before and after instrumentation.The width of dentine removed was measured at three points (2 mm,4 mm and 6 mm to root tip).Incidence of canal aberrations was recorded and an-alyzed statistically using T-test.RESULTS:No significant difference was found between TF and ProTaper instruments (P >0.05).Centralizing ability of the 2 systems was better when canal curvature was between 0°and 15°than that between 16°and 35°(P <0.05).CONCLUSION:Under the conditions of this study,both TF and ProTaper NiTi rotary systems can keep satisfactory preservation of the original canal shape.