Thermafil热塑牙胶根管充填的临床疗效评价

[目的]对Thermafil热牙胶充填方法进行临床疗效评价.[方法]选择牙髓病或根尖周病患牙218例,随机分为2组,分别采用冷牙胶侧压法根管充填(1组)及Thermafil热塑牙胶法根管充填(2组),对其操作时间、术后疼痛、充填效果及远期疗效进行比较.[结果]操作时间:1组为162 s/根,2组为48 s/根(P＜0.01),两组差异有统计学意义.充填效果:(X-ray)显示1组适充100颗,超充2颗,欠充7颗;2组适充99颗,超充7颗,欠充3颗(P＞0.05).术后疼痛两组差异无统计学意义.远期疗效:2组明显优于1组(P＜0.05).[结论]热塑牙胶充填技术简便省时,充填效果及长期疗效均优于传统的冷牙胶侧压法,但成本较高,且容易造成超充(技术要求较高).

Clinical Evaluation of Root Canal Obturation with Thermafil Technique

[Objective] To evaluate the clinical effect of Thermafil endodontic obturation. [Methods] A total of 218 teeth with pulp pathema or periapical diseases were randomly divided into two groups. The control group canals were obturated with cold lateral condensation (group 1). The test group canals were filled with Thermafil (group 2). Obturation time, filling effect, incidence of pain after obturation and long-term results were compared. [Results] Statistically significant difference were found between two groups in obturation time and long-term result (P< 0.01). But there were no statistical difference in filling effect and pain of postoperation (P>0.05). [Conclusion] The Thermafil obturation technique was more convenient and efficient, and has a better filling quality and long-term results than cold lateral condensation, but seems more likely to result in overfilling and costs more.