论文部分内容阅读
目的对比再治疗旋转镍钛器械与手用不锈钢器械去除根充物的效果。方法 54颗上切牙根管充填后分为三组(n=18),用不同方法去除根充物:A组:手用不锈钢锉+氯仿组;B组:ProTaper再治疗旋转镍钛组,不使用氯仿;C组:ProTaper+氯仿组。评价操作时间、氯仿用量及根充物残留。结果 B、C组操作时间短于A组(P<0.05),使用氯仿对总操作时间无影响(P>0.05),C组氯仿用量明显少于A组(P<0.01)。三组根充物总残留量无差异(P>0.05)。结论使用旋转镍钛器械去除根充物,可减少氯仿用量,缩短操作时间。
Objective To compare the re-treatment of rotary nickel-titanium instruments and hand-held stainless steel instruments to remove root-filling effects. Methods 54 root canal incisions were divided into three groups (n = 18). Roots were removed by different methods: group A: stainless steel file + chloroform group; group B: ProTaper group, No use of chloroform; Group C: ProTaper + chloroform. Evaluation of operating time, the amount of chloroform and root residue. Results The operation time in group B and group C was shorter than that in group A (P <0.05). The use of chloroform had no effect on the total operation time (P> 0.05). The amount of chloroform in group C was significantly less than that in group A (P <0.01). Three groups of total root residue no difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion The use of rotary nickel-titanium instruments to remove root pruritus can reduce the amount of chloroform, shorten the operation time.