CAJ | 학술논문

目的：系统比较单独使用注射冲洗与辅助超声荡洗在根管预备过程中的根管清洁效果。方法电子检索PubMed、Embase、Web? of? Science、Cochrane ?Library、Pro Quest? Dissertation? and ?Theses，以及中文科技期刊数据库、中国期刊全文数据库、万方数据库和中国生物医学文献数据库，检索时间为1985年1月1日—2014年3月1日，同时对中文口腔医学杂志进行手工检索，对全部纳入文献的参考文献进行追索，收集辅助超声荡洗能否提高注射冲洗质量的临床随机对照试验（RCT）和临床对照试验（CCT）。使用Cochrane协作网推荐的标准对纳入文献进行偏倚风险评价并提取数据，采用RevMan?5.2软件进行统计分析。结果最终纳入9篇文献，7篇为低度风险，2篇为中度风险。Meta分析结果：组织学方法显示辅助超声荡洗能显著提高根管根尖区主侧支根管碎屑和玷污层的清洁程度，与仅使用注射冲洗相比，其差异有统计学意义（P<0.01），但细菌培养法（P=0.26）及聚合酶链反应（PCR）检测法（0.99）均显示辅助超声荡洗的根管抗菌效果与仅使用注射冲洗无明显差异。结论辅助超声荡洗对根管根尖区碎屑和玷污层的清洁效果明显优于单独使用注射冲洗，但两者的根管抗菌效果没有明显差异。
목적：계통비교단독사용주사충세여보조초성탕세재근관예비과정중적근관청길효과。방법전자검색PubMed、Embase、Web? of? Science、Cochrane ?Library、Pro Quest? Dissertation? and ?Theses，이급중문과기기간수거고、중국기간전문수거고、만방수거고화중국생물의학문헌수거고，검색시간위1985년1월1일—2014년3월1일，동시대중문구강의학잡지진행수공검색，대전부납입문헌적삼고문헌진행추색，수집보조초성탕세능부제고주사충세질량적림상수궤대조시험（RCT）화림상대조시험（CCT）。사용Cochrane협작망추천적표준대납입문헌진행편의풍험평개병제취수거，채용RevMan?5.2연건진행통계분석。결과최종납입9편문헌，7편위저도풍험，2편위중도풍험。Meta분석결과：조직학방법현시보조초성탕세능현저제고근관근첨구주측지근관쇄설화점오층적청길정도，여부사용주사충세상비，기차이유통계학의의（P<0.01），단세균배양법（P=0.26）급취합매련반응（PCR）검측법（0.99）균현시보조초성탕세적근관항균효과여부사용주사충세무명현차이。결론보조초성탕세대근관근첨구쇄설화점오층적청길효과명현우우단독사용주사충세，단량자적근관항균효과몰유명현차이。
Objective?To?investigate?evidence?supporting?whether?ultrasonic?irrigation?as?a?supplement?is?more?effective?than?syringe?irrigation?in?root?canal?cleaning.?Methods???An?electronic?search?was?conducted?in?PubMed,?Embase,?Web?of?Science,?Cochrane?Library,?ProQuest?Dissertation?and?Theses,?Database?for?Chinese?Technical?Periodicals,?China?National?Knowledge?Infrastructure,?Wanfang?Database,?and?Chinese?Biomedical?Literature?Database.?Studies?were?retrieved?from?January?1,?1985?to?March?1,?2014.?The?Chinese?journals?on?stomatology?and?the?bibliography?of?all?relevant?articles?were?manually?searched.?Relevant?clinical?randomized?controlled?trial?(RCT)?and?clinical?controlled?trial?(CCT)?were?selected.?Two?investigators?evaluated?the?risk?of?bias?of?the?included?trials?in?accordance?with?Cochrane?risk?of?bias?assessment?tools?and?collected?data?of?included?studies.?Meta-analysis?was?then?performed?in?RevMan?5.2.?Results???Nine?articles?that?satis-fied?the?eligibility?criteria?were?included?in?this?Meta-analysis.?Seven?studies?showed?low?bias?risk,?and?the?remaining?studies?exhibited?moderate?bias?risk.?Histological?results?showed?that?ultrasonic?irrigation?supplement?could?significantly?improve?canal?and?isthmus?debridement?at?the?apical?area?(P<0.01).?Antibacterial?efficacy?was?evaluated?by?bacterial?culture?(P=0.26)?and?polymerase?chain?reaction?(P=0.99)?methods,??no?sig-nificant?differences?in?antibacterial?efficacy?were?observed.?Conclusion???Ultrasonic?irrigation?supplement?is?more?effec-tive?than?syringe?irrigation?in?root?canal?debridement?at?the?apical?area.?However,?antibacterial?efficacy?is?not?statisti-cally?significant.