镍钛机动根管预备器械对根管弯曲度的影响

目的：评价3种镍钛机动预备系统保持弯曲率的能力及其工作效率,方法：离体下颌磨牙近中弯曲根管64个,随机分为4组：Flexofile,LightSpeed,ProFile,Qantec SC.分别预备到主尖锉30号和40号,对各组器械预备前后的根管弯曲度和预备时间进行测量。结果：Flexofile组的根管弯曲度减少最明显,在颊舌向与另外3组镍钛器械间的差异均有非常显著意义（P＜0．01）,在主尖锉为30号的镍钛组,预备前后的根管弯曲度无统计学差异（P＞0．05）,ProFile和Quantec SC预备都显著缩短操作时间,与Flexofile组间的差异有显著意义（P＜0．01）。结论：镍钛机动预备器械能很好地保持根管的原有弯曲度,节省预备时间。     

3种机用镍钛器械在重度弯曲根管预备中根管成形能力的研究

目的：比较机用镍钛Protaper、K3、iRaCe在重度弯曲根管预备中的根管成形能力。方法：收集新鲜拔除的人恒磨牙60颗,要求其中一个根管的弯曲角度为25°～45°,分为Protaper组、K3组和iRaCe组,每组20颗。每颗牙分别在根管预备前后拍摄标准化的平行投照片,通过影像分析来记录根管弯曲度的变化值和根尖偏移量,同时记录折断的器械和根管预备的时间。结果：实验过程中3个组均无器械折断。K3组、iRaCe组在根管预备后根管弯曲角度的变化小于Protaper组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,K3组和iRaCe组之间差异也具有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。Protaper组、K3组的根尖偏移量大于iRaCe组,差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）,Protaper组和K3组之间差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。三组在操作时间上的差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论：iRaCe和K3在重度弯曲根管预备中的根管成形能力较Protaper要好,更适合用于重度弯曲根管预备。     

两种根管器械预备后牙根管的体会

目的：比较不锈钢K锉（SS）,ProTaper手用镍钛锉（PT）,预备后牙根管的临床效果。方法：选取需做根管治疗的前磨牙、磨牙110颗,随机分为两组,每组55颗牙。PT组用ProTaper手用镍钛锉冠向下预备技术预备根管。SS组用不锈钢K型锉逐步后退技术预备根管。两组均采用标准牙胶尖侧向加压技术进行根管充填。记录两组根管预备所需时间和根管充填后的效果,进行统计学分析。结果：PT组单根管预备所需时间（6.17±1.31）min,明显低于SS组（13.22±2.32）min,（P〈0.05）,PT组根管适充率（90.91%）,明显高于SS组（70.91%）,（P〈0.05）。两组比较差异有统计学意义。结论：ProTaper手用镍钛锉在后牙根管预备中有明显的优越性,省时省力,具有良好的成形能力和根管清理效果,适充率高。     

ProTaper联合EDTA凝胶在老年人磨牙根管治疗中的应用

目的：观察ProTaper手用镍钛锉联合EDTA凝胶在老年人磨牙根管治疗中应用的临床效果。方法：老年患者102颗磨牙,随机分为2组,每组51颗牙,实验组（PT）用ProTaper手用镍钛锉联合EDTA凝胶冠根向技术预备根管。对照组（SS）用不锈钢K型锉逐步后退法预备根管。两组均采用侧方加压法充填根管。记录根管治疗期间疼痛发生情况,根据X线片评价根管充填的效果。结果：PT组根管治疗期间疼痛发生率（5．88％）显著低于SS组（27．45％）,PT组根管适充率（84．31％）明显高于SS组（62．74％）,两组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：ProTaper手用镍钛锉联合EDTA凝胶在老年人磨牙根管预备中有好的成形效果和较低的治疗间疼痛发生率。     

三种方法预备后牙细弯根管的比较

目的探讨逐步后退法、逐步深入法、被动逐步后退法（超声波与手用器械联合应用、三种不同方法预备后牙细弯根管对根管壁的清理能力及操作时间的差别。方法应用逐步后退法、逐步深入法、被动逐步后退法（超声波与手用器械联合应用）对45个新鲜拔除的人恒磨牙近中颊侧根管进行预备．并记录操作时间，将牙根纵向劈开，分为根冠1／3、根中1／3及根尖1／3，扫描电镜下评价其根管内壁牙本质碎屑和玷污层的形成情况。结果三种方法对根管清理能力差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）而无论使用何种预备方法，其对根中1／3及根冠1／3处的清理能力优于根尖1／3部．两者差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。3种方法根管预备时间分别为：逐步后退法（12．8±1．26）min．逐步深入法（9．02±0．74）min，被动逐步后退法（超声与手用器械联合应用法）（12．21±1．90）min．三组差异无统计学意义（P〉0．05）。结论三种根管预备方法均不能达到完全的根管清理，尤其是对于根尖1／3部，清洁效果很不理想：总体上看，根中及根冠1／3清洁度显著优于根尖1／3。被动逐步后退法（超声与手用器械联合应用）及逐步后退法操作均较费时、费力，而逐步后退法根管预备时间略短于另两种方法且较省力。     

ProTaper Gold 和 TF Adaptive 根管预备后根管成形效果的比较研究

目的：采用CBCT测量Protaper Gold（PTG）和TF Adaptive（TFA）在根管预备时根管偏移及轴中心率，比较PTG和TFA根管预备的成形效果。方法：将符合标准的40颗离体牙随机分成2组，A组使用PTG根管预备器械预备至F2、B组使用TFA根管预备器械预备至0．06／＃25。采用Gambill的计算方法，分析PTG和TFA两组的根管偏移和轴中心率。结果：在距根尖1 mm处A组的根管偏移量略小于B组，两组间比较有统计学意义（P＜0．05），其它层面上根管偏移及轴中心率均无差异。结论：两种器械均能较好的维持根管原有形态走向，但在根尖处A组维持根管原始形态的能力较TFA组稍好。     

Carisolv应用于根管冲洗对根管内粪肠球菌抗菌作用的体外研究

目的：分析Carisolv祛龋凝胶作为根管冲洗剂对粪肠球菌（E．faecalis）离体牙根管感染模型的抗菌效果。方法：60颗牙体完整、发育正常的人单根管前磨牙,用ProTaper手用器械将建立根管感染模型的离体牙根管预备至F2后,建立粪肠球菌体外根管感染模型。随机分为5组,分别使用Carisolv凝胶、5．25％次氯酸钠溶液、EDTA凝胶、2％氯亚明溶液、0．9％氯化钠溶液进行根管冲洗,对根管冲洗前后的根管进行菌落计数,比较各种冲洗剂的抗菌作用。结果：5种冲洗剂在根管预备冲洗后细菌数量都显著性低于冲洗前（P＜0．001）。Carisolv组、氯亚明组、次氯酸钠组冲洗后根管的细菌数量没有显著性差异（P＞0．05）,低于EDTA组和氯化钠组（P＜0．01）。结论：Carisolv凝胶作为根管冲洗剂具备抗菌作用,其抗菌作用强于EDTA凝胶和0．9％氯化钠溶液。     

不同器械根管预备效果的实验研究

目的：比较临床常用扩锉器械的根管清理效果。方法：将60个离体牙随机分为6组，分别为空白对照组、K型钻组、K型钻和锉组、K型钻和H型锉组、K型锉组和超声扩锉组，采用逐步后退法预备根管。扫描电镜观察根管内壁。结果：根管壁碎屑面积比较，K型锉组＞K型钻组＞K型钻和锉组＞空白对照组＞K型钻和H型锉组＞超声扩锉组，且前3组与其余各组之间具有显著性差异（P＜0．05），而后3者之间无显著性差异（P＞0．05）。结论：超声扩锉与K型钻和H型锉效果最好；K型钻与K型锉交替使用次之；单纯扩或锉不能有效进行根管清理。建议临床采用K型钻和H型锉交替预备根管。     

ProTaper机用镍钛锉预备根管的临床评价

目的观察ProTaper机用镍钛锉的根管预备效果。方法将行根管治疗的76颗患牙共146个根管随机分为P组（38颗牙，74个根管）和S组（38颗牙，72个根管），P组用ProTaper机用镍钛锉冠根向逐步深入法预备根管，S组用手用不锈钢锉逐步后退法预备根管，观察两组在根管预备时间、锉折断、备根后患牙的疼痛发生率和根充效果的差异。结果P组根管预备时间平均为4min20s，明显少于S组的9min31s；两组的器械折断率无显著性差异（P〉0．05）；P组备根后疼痛发生率为5．3％，明显低于S组的23．7％（P〈0．05）；P组根充恰填率明显高于S组（P〈0．01），欠填率明显低于S组（P〈0．01）。结论只要掌握冠根向备根技术的要点，ProTeper机用锉比传统手用不锈钢锉更省时省力，可以有效地降低术后疼痛发生率，提高根充效果。     

不同超声倒预备尖对根管峡部预备成型的体外实验比较

目的：比较3种超声倒预备尖对哑铃型牙根根管峡部预备成型的差异。方法：120颗由一个峡部连接2个主根管的哑铃型离体上颌前磨牙,随机均分成3组（n ＝40）,分别用超声波配3种倒预备尖对根管峡部进行倒预备：①镍钛尖 RE2,②金刚砂尖 Berutti,③25＃K 锉。扫描电镜评价峡部的边缘质量、微裂数目和类型,采用 SPSS 13．0软件包进行 Kruskal Wallis Test 秩和检验。结果：超声波配镍钛尖 RE2组预备峡部边缘质量优于金刚砂尖 Berutti 组和25＃K 锉组（P ＝0．003）;微裂数目少于金刚砂尖 Berutti 组和25＃K 锉组（P ＝0．003）;3组间微裂类型无统计学差异（P ＝0．830）。结论：超声波配合镍钛尖 RE2倒预备更适用于预备根管峡部。     

ProTaper手动镍钛锉与ISO标准锉根管预备技术的对比实验研究

目的:比较ProTaper手动镍钛锉与ISO标准手用不锈钢K型锉根管预备技术的效果。方法:将40个含弯曲管的透明塑料模块随机分为两组, 每组20个,A组为ProTaper手动镍钛锉预备组(PT组);B组为手用不锈钢K型锉预备组(SS组)。记录每组根管预备所需的时间,预备后根管形态的变化,以及推出根尖液体和碎屑的量。结果:PT组根管预备所用时间明显小于SS组(P<0. 05);预备后弯曲根管被直化的程度PT组明显小于SS组(P< 0. 05 );预备过程中PT组推出根尖液体和碎屑的量显著少于SS组(P<0. 05)。结论:与传统手用不锈钢锉相比,ProTaper手动镍钛锉在根管预备方面有明显的优越性。     

手用ProTaper镍钛器械根管清理效果的扫描电镜研究

目的评价新型镍钛根管预备器械——手用ProTaper预备后牙根管的效果。方法选择因正畸治疗而拔除的成对上颌前磨牙20对共40个,随机分为2组进行根管预备。A组为实验组,采用手用ProTaper和冠根向深入法预备根管;B组为对照组,采用镍钛手用K锉Nitiflex和平衡力技术预备根管;记录根管预备时间。纵剖根管后,扫描电镜下观察根尖段、根中段、根管口段的碎屑和玷污层。结果在根尖和根中段,A组的碎屑和玷污层均较B组少,差异具有显著性意义(P<0.05)。在根管口段,两组间无显著性差异(P>0.05)。两组间根管预备时间无统计学差异(P>0.05)。结论手用ProTaper镍钛器械配合有效的冲洗液,具有良好的根管清理效果,是值得推广的新型手用根管预备技术。     

二氧化氯冲洗根管清洁效果的扫描电镜观察

目的:评价二氧化氯(ClO2)用于根管冲洗的清洁效果.方法:选择30个离体单根管前磨牙,截去牙冠后随机平分成6组(SA、SB、SC、UA、UB、UC),采用逐步后退法进行根管预备,前3组用注射器冲洗根管,冲洗剂分别为3%H2O2 0.9%NaCl、1%次氯酸钠(NaClO)和0.1%ClO2;后3组用超声波冲洗,冲洗剂分别用蒸馏水、1%NaClO和0.1%ClO2.完成根管预备后纵行劈开牙根,扫描电镜观察,记录电镜照片上根管颈1/3、中1/3、尖1/3各部位的碎屑和玷污层情况,进行统计学分析.结果:使用注射器冲洗者,碎屑和玷污层记分SC组均明显低于SA组(P＜0.05),与SB组无显著性差异(p＞0.05);用超声波冲洗者,碎屑记分3组之间无显著性差异(P＞0.05),玷污层记分UC组显著低于UA组(p＜0.05),与UB组无显著性差异(P＞0.05).结论:0.1%ClO2可用于根管冲洗,对碎屑和玷污层的清除效果优于3%H2O2 0.9%NaCl,与1%NaClO无明显不同,联合超声波冲洗效果更好.     

FlexMaster镍钛器械根管预备效果研究

目的：评价机用FlexMaster镍钛器械根管预备效果。方法：选择因正畸或牙周病拔除的新鲜单根管离体牙60颗,根管弯曲度20°-40°,随机分成3组（FM组、H组、PF组）,分别使用机用FlexMaster、Hero642、ProFile镍钛器械,冠根向技术预备根管,通过数字牙片、扫描电镜和软件分析方法,观察比较根管拉直程度、安全性能、根尖偏移指数、牙本质小管开口数目、根管壁碎屑、玷污层等情况。结果：3组器械均能较好的维持弯曲根管的原有解剖形态,根管拉直程度差异无显著性。各组的根尖偏移指数均小于0.2 mm,视为无偏移发生,差异无显著性。牙本质小管开口数目在根管中1/3段FM组及H组牙多于PF组,在根管尖1/3段FM组多于H组及PF组,差异有显著性（P〈0.05）。根管中1/3段和根管尖1/3段,FM组和H组根管壁碎屑较PF组少,差异有显著性（P〈0.05）。各组根管壁总体较为清洁,绝大多数牙本质小管开放,仅有少量玷污层,玷污层记分差异无显著性。结论：FlexMaster镍钛系统安全、有效,能较好维持根管的初始形态,具有较好的根管成形能力和清理效果,值得临床推广使用。     

Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability of rotary ProTaper compared with rotary GT and manual K-Flexofile

PURPOSE: To compare the cleaning efficacy and shaping ability of engine-driven ProTaper and GT files, and manual preparation using K-Flexofile instruments in curved root canals of extracted human teeth. METHODS: 45 canals of maxillary and mandibular molars with curvatures between 25 degrees and 40 degrees were divided into three groups. The groups were balanced with regard to the angle and the radius of canal curvature. Canals in each group were prepared to an apical size of 25 with either the rotary ProTaper or GT system, or manually with K-Flexofile using the modified double-flared technique. Irrigation was done with 2 mL 2.5% NaOCl after each instrument and, as the final rinse, 10 mL 2.5% NaOCl then 10 mL 17% EDTA and finally 5 mL distilled water. The double-exposure radiographic technique was used to examine for the presence of apical transportation. The time required to complete the preparation, as well as any change in working length after preparation were recorded. The roots were then grooved and split longitudinally. The amounts of debris and smear layer were evaluated at the apical, middle and coronal regions under the scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed either parametrically with the F-test or non-parametrically using the Kruskal-Wallis test, where appropriate. RESULTS: Two GT files but none of the K-Flexofile and ProTaper instruments separated. For debris removal, the ProTaper group achieved a better result than GT (P < 0.05) but not the K-Flexofile group at all three regions (apical, middle and coronal). K-Flexofiles produced significantly less smear layer than ProTaper and GT files only in the middle third of the canal (P < 0.01). Both NiTi rotary instruments maintained the original canal shape better than the K-Flexofiles (P < 0.05) and required significantly less time to complete the preparation.     

3种往复旋转单支镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的效果比较

目的: 评价3种往复旋转单支镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的效果。方法: 选择115个单弯树脂模拟根管,采用随机图表法分为Reciproc组（A组,28个）、One file组（B组,29个）、Wave One组（C组,29个）和对照组（D组,29个）。按照说明书要求预备模拟根管,比较4组根管预备、树脂去除量、根管清理效果、中心定位能力及根管宽度。采用SPSS 22.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果: 4组模块质量差和弯曲度差值相比无显著差异（P>0.05）,根管预备时间差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）,B组根管预备时间最短（P<0.05）。4组根管口、根管口和弯曲起始点中点2处树脂去除量相比,差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）。4组根管壁碎屑评分及玷污层评分差异有统计学意义（P<0.05）;与A、B和D组相比,C组冠部、中部和尖部根管壁碎屑评分最低,冠部和中部根管壁玷污层评分最低（P<0.05）。4组在距离根尖孔5、6、7 mm处的中心定位能力差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。4组根管宽度差异无统计学意义（P>0.05）。结论: Reciproc、One file和Wave One往复旋转单支镍钛器械均可保持模拟根管的原始形态,与Reciproc和Wave One相比,One file根管成形能力及清理效果较为理想。     

Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments

AIM: To compare various parameters of root canal preparation using RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La-Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) and ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments. METHODOLOGY: Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures between 20 degrees and 40 degrees were embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 30 using RaCe or ProTaper rotary instruments in low-torque motors with torque control and constant speed of 300 r.p.m. (ProTaper with ATR Tecnika, Advanced Technology Research, Pistoia, Italy; RaCe with EndoStepper, S.E.T., Olching, Germany). In both groups irrigation was performed with 2 mL NaOCl (3%) after each instrument size. Calcinase-Slide (lege artis, Dettenhausen, Germany) was used as a chelating agent with each instrument. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of curved root canals, postoperative root canal cross-sections, safety issues and working time. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM using 5-score indices for debris and smear layer. Statistical analysis was performed using the following tests: Wilcoxon's test for straightening and working time was used (P < 0.05); Fisher's exact test for comparison of cross-sections and root canal cleanliness (P < 0.05). RESULTS: Both Ni-Ti systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was less than 1 degrees for both systems. Following preparation with RaCe, 49% of the root canals had a round or oval diameter and 50% an irregular diameter, ProTaper preparations resulted in a round or oval diameter in 50% of the cases. For debris, RaCe and ProTaper achieved 47 and 49% scores of 1 and 2, respectively; there was no significant difference. For smear layer, RaCe and ProTaper achieved 51 and 33% scores 1 and 2, respectively; no statistically significant differences were apparent for the coronal and middle sections of the root canals, but RaCe performed significantly better in the apical region (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.0392). Two roots lost working length with RaCe instruments, whilst ProTaper preparation resulted in two roots loosing working length and one fractured instrument. Mean working time was shorter for ProTaper (90.9 s) than for RaCe (137.6 s); the difference was significant (Wilcoxon's test, P = 0.011). CONCLUSIONS: Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Cleanliness was not satisfactory for both systems.     

根尖预备尺寸对玷污层清除效果的比较研究

目的:比较5种不同根尖预备方案对根管玷污层的清除效果。方法:将50颗单根管上颌离体前牙随机分为5组,A组:采用机动ProTaper系统将根尖预备至25^#(F2),配合次氯酸钠+EDTA冲洗;B组:根尖预备至30^#(F3),预备及冲洗方法同A组;C组:采用机动ProTaper系统将根尖预备至F3,后用不锈钢K锉预备根尖至35^#,冲洗同A组;D组:采用机动ProTaper系统将根尖预备至F3,后用不锈钢K锉预备根尖至40^#,冲洗同A组;E组:根管预备同D组,冲洗用蒸馏水。利用热场发射扫描电子显微镜,评估玷污层清除情况。结果:B组、C组和D组均明显优于A组 (P<0.05);A组、B组、C组和D组明显优于对照E组(P<0.05)。结论:机动ProTaper将根管预备至30^#,可使足量的冲洗液渗入根尖1/3区,有效去除玷污层及碎屑。     

二氧化氯作为根管超声冲洗剂的清洁效果

目的 评价二氧化氯用作根管超声冲洗剂的清洁效果.方法 选择30颗离体单根管前磨牙,截去牙冠后随机平分成A、B、C三组,用手持不锈钢器械逐步后退法进行根管预备,超声波冲洗,冲洗剂分别为蒸馏水、1.0%次氯酸钠和0.1%二氧化氯溶液.完成根管预备后纵行劈开牙根,扫描电镜观察,在根管颈1/3、中1/3、尖1/3各部位随机拍照,在电镜照片上评定根管壁上碎屑和玷污层记分,计数牙本质小管开放数目,并进行统计学分析.结果 A、B、C各组碎屑记分差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05);B、C两组的玷污层明显少于A组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01);牙本质小管开放数也明显多于A组,差异有统计学意义(P＜0.01),但B、C两组之间差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 0.1%二氧化氯溶液用作根管超声冲洗剂,具有良好的清洁作用,对碎屑和玷污层的去除能力不亚于1.0%次氯酸钠,明显优于蒸馏水.     

A comparative study of root canal preparation with NiTi-TEE and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments

Aim To evaluate and compare several parameters of curved root canal preparation using two different Ni‐Ti systems: NiTi‐TEE (Sjöding Sendoline, Kista, Sweden) and K3 (Sybron Endo, Orange County, CA, USA). Methodology Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures ranging from 20 to 40° were divided into two groups. In one group, 50 root canals were instrumented using NiTi‐TEE files to an apical size 30; 0.04 taper (the largest available size at the time of this study). In the other group, 50 root canals were prepared with K3 instruments to an apical size 45; 02 taper. Both systems were used in a crowndown manner, with copious NaOCl (3%) irrigation and a chelating agent (Calcinase Slide, lege artis, Dettenhausen, Germany), employing torque‐controlled motors. For assessment of shaping ability, pre‐ and postinstrumentation radiographs and cross‐sectional photographs of canals were taken and changes in canal curvature and root canal diameter documented. Cleaning ability was evaluated by investigating specimens of the apical, medial and coronal third of the root canal wall under a scanning electron microscope using 5‐score indices for debris and smear layer. Procedural errors (instrument separations, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length) and working time were recorded. Nonparametric anova was used to compare straightening of canal curvatures, canal cross‐sections and canal wall cleanliness (P < 0.05), whereas working time was analysed using the parametric anova (P < 0.05). Results Both Ni‐Ti systems maintained curvature well: the mean degree of straightening was 0.2° for NiTi‐TEE and 0.4° for K3 with no statistical significance between the groups. Post‐instrumentation cross‐sections of the root canals revealed an acceptable contour (round or oval) in 50.6% of cases for the NiTi‐TEE group and in 65.3% of cases for the K3 group. The difference was not significant. The SEM investigation of canal walls showed equally good debris removal for both systems: NiTi‐TEE prepared canal walls in 74.7% of cases with scores I and II; K3 achieved these scores in 78.7% of cases. For smear layer, NiTi‐TEE and K3 only received good scores (I and II) in 38.7% and 40% of canal wall specimens, respectively. For both parameters, no significant differences were found between groups. File fractures did not occur, but loss of working length was observed in one case following the preparation with NiTi‐TEE and in three cases during K3 instrumentation. Mean working time was significantly shorter for NiTi‐TEE (170 s) than for K3 (208 s). Conclusions Both systems maintained original canal curvature well and were safe to use. Whilst debridement of canals was considered satisfactory, both systems failed to remove smear layer sufficiently.