NEOSONO Ultima EZ根尖定位仪准确性的临床评价

目的利用X线调整法评价手感法和NEOSONO Ultima EZ电测法测量根管工作长度的准确性。方法选择需做根管治疗的不同牙位的237个根管，分别用手感法和电测法测量根管工作长度，以X线调整法确定标准工作长度，比较两者准确性以及电测法中不同牙位准确性的差异。结果NEOSONO Uhima EZ电测法的准确率为86．92％，手感法的准确率为72．57％，两者有统计学差异（P〈0．01）；电测法对不同牙位的准确性无差异。结论NEOSONO Uhlma EZ电测法的准确性较高，注意适应证的选择，可在临床推广应用。     

应用Neosono根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度的临床研究

目的：研究根尖定位仪Neosono测量根管工作长度的准确性。方法：选取250个需行根管治疗的单根管牙为研究对象,以插针拍X线片计算牙的长度,将电测法和手感法测得的根管工作长度与X线片法测得的牙的长度相比较来计算电测法和手感法的准确率,并进行统计学分析。结果：电测法的准确率是94．8％,手感法的准确率是74％,电测法的准确率高于手感法。结论：手感法的准确率较低,可起参考作用,电测法准确率较高,可作为根管工作长度的常规测量,必要时可用X线片法来确认。3种方法联合应用,能够满足临床要求。     

Dentaport ZX测量根管工作长度准确性临床评价

目的：研究Dentaport ZX根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度的准确性。方法：选取129个需进行根管治疗的恒牙为研究对象,插针摄X线牙片计算牙的长度,将电测法和手感法测得的根管工作长度与X线片法测得的根管长度相比较来计算电测法和手感法的准确率,并进行统计学分析。结果：电测法的准确率为89.92％,手感法的准确率为713.2％。结论：电测法的准确率高于手感法,Dentaport ZX根管测量仪使用方便、快捷,能够准确测量根管工作长度。     

手感法与X直线直视摄影术相结合测量根管工作长度的体外研究

牙髓病、根尖周病的主要治疗方法是根管治疗术,准确测量根管工作长度是根管治疗的关键步骤。准确的根管工作长度(也称操作长度)的测量可以提高临床疗效,减少并发症的发生。目前根管工作长度的测量有手感法、X线法、电测法等[1],除电测法外手感法X线法单独使用准确度都不够高,难以满足临床要求[2]。电测法简便、迅速、准确度高但受一定因素的影响。笔者将手感法与X线直视摄影术相结合测量根管工作长度,通过离体牙实验研究手感法与RVG相结合的准确度,进一步为临床应用提供实验依据。一、受试对象根据观察内容不同,本实验分为正常离体牙和有…     

RayPex5根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度准确性的临床评价

采用手感法、电测法测量211 个根管工作长度,而后用X线片法对所确定的根管工作长度进行验证.电测法和手感法准确率分别为96.21%和78.20%,两者有显著统计学差异(P<0.001).电测法测量前牙和磨牙的准确率分别为100%和92.5%,两者有统计学差异(P<0.05),而测量根尖周有病变与无病变组、前牙与前磨牙组、前磨牙与磨牙组准确率均无统计学差异.研究表明,电测法测定根管工作长度准确性高,且测量前牙的准确率高于测量磨牙的准确率;Raypex 5 型根尖定位仪可以较准确地测量根管工作长度.     

根管长度电测仪在老年人根管治疗中的临床应用

目的初步探讨RootZX根管长度电测仪测定老年人根管工作长度的准确性及不同根髓状态对其测量准确性的影响。方法选择老年患者需作根管治疗的患牙204颗,根管373个,随机分为电测法组和手感法组,分别测定根管的工作长度后预备根管,X线片试尖测定牙齿的长度,比较电测法组和手感法组测定根管工作长度的准确率。以及不同根髓状态对电测法测定根管工作长度准确率的影响。结果电测法组、手感法组准确率分别为93.75%、67.96%。经χ2检验,两组间有显著性差异。电测法中活髓根管准确率为93.81%,死髓根管的准确率为93.68%。经χ2检验,两组准确率无显著性差异。结论RootZX测量老年人根管工作长度的准确率明显高于手感法,其准确性不受根髓状态的影响。     

根管长度测量仪的临床应用及影响因素

目的研究根管长度测量仪测量根管工作长度的准确性及其影响因素。方法选取150例需行根管治疗的患者,共计根管245个,以手感法和电测法先后测量根管工作长度,以插针摄片法计算的根管工作长度为准,进行准确率比较,并进行统计学分析。结果手感法准确率70.2%,电测法准确率93.5%,高于手感法。结论电测法准确率高,可结合手感法及插针摄片法应用于临床,提高根管治疗的疗效。     

电子根尖定位仪临床精确性分析

目的:比较电测法、手感法和拍片法测定根管工作长度的精确性。方法:分别用手感法、拍片法及电子根尖定位仪(electronic apex locator,EAL)Root ZX和Raypex-5在体内测量31个根管的工作长度,与离体直视根尖剖面最狭窄点处测得的根管长度进行比较。结果:Raypex-5准确率为93.55%,Root ZX为87.10%,手感法35.48%,拍片法48.39%。电测法与手感法、拍片法的准确率比较相差非常显著(P<0.01)。结论:电子根尖定位仪测定根管工作长度的准确率比拍片法和手感法高。     

Raypex 5根尖定位仪临床应用的准确性观察分析

目的：观察Raypex 5在临床应用中测量根管工作长度的准确性及影响因素。方法：共收集342例患者的903个根管,随机分为实验组和对照组。实验组458个根管采用Raypex 5测量根管工作长度。对照组445个根管,按手感法测量根管工作长度,拍摄X线片,分析比较,研究其准确性及影响因素。结果：在X线片上恰填范围内,实验组准确率达94.32%,对照组75.06%。电测法与手感法的准确率比较有显著性差异（P〈0.01）。牙髓活力,根尖骨质破坏状况,龋洞类型,牙位,牙齿形态,根管数目对Raypex 5测量根管工作长度的准确性无明显影响。结论：根尖定位仪Raypex 5能较为准确地测量根管工作长度,准确率比手感法高,值得临床推广使用。     

手感法结合X线直视摄影术测量根管工作长度准确性及影响因素的研究

目的 研究手感法与X线直视摄影术(Radio-visio-graphy,RVG)相结合测量根管工作长度的准确性及影响因素.方法 通过对55颗离体单根牙和105颗临床根管治疗惠牙采用手感法结合RVG测量根管工作长度,研究其准确度及影响因素.结果 离体牙实验表明,手感法结合RVG测量根尖有吸收牙的准确度较正常牙组低,二者有显著性差异(P<0.05).冠根完整性及根尖周病变对手感法结合RVG临床测量准确性有影响.结论 运用手感法结合RVG确定根管工作长度较准确,能达到根管充填的满意率.但根尖周病变、牙根吸收或冠根不完整均会降低其准确性.     

ProPex根管测量仪测量磨牙牙齿操作长度准确性的临床评价

目的：评价分析ProPex根管测量仪测量磨牙牙齿操作长度的准确性.方法：选择116例根管治疗术的患者共130个磨牙383个根管,分为3组.A组：因根管欠充须再治疗者30个牙91个根管;B组：因修复治疗需要去髓术者46个牙130个根管;C组：慢性根尖周炎54个牙162个根管.以Propex测量牙齿操作长度.按此长度预备并充填根管,即刻拍摄X线片,观察并测量根管充填情况.结果：ProPex测量磨牙牙齿操作长度的准确率：A组86.8%,B组96.2%,C组85.8%.结论：ProPex可以比较准确地测量磨牙牙齿操作长度.     

副根管对根管长度电测法准确性影响的临床研究

目的 探讨副根管对根管长度电测法准确性的影响。方法 X线牙片示有副根管透射影像的患牙14例(A组),无副根管透射影像患牙14例(B组),分别用Root ZX测根管长度。作为电极的H锉在根尖1/3区上下移动,测量两次结果L1和L2,记录两者之间的差值ΔL,以L1为长度插入H锉摄牙片X_1,以L2为长度完成根充,摄牙片X_2。结果 A组10例L1相似文献   

临床根管预备对电子根尖定位仪精确性影响的研究

目的探讨根管预备对电子根尖定位仪(Electronic Apical Locator,EAL)精确性的影响。方法采用数字随机法把根管分为4组:初尖锉组:使用初尖锉取得手感法的根管工作长度并使用EALs(Root ZXand Raypex-5)测量根管工作长度;②扩一组:比初尖锉大1号的锉预备根管并使用EALs测量根管工作长度;③扩二组:扩至比初尖锉大2号的锉并用EALs测得根管工作长度;④扩三组:扩至比初尖锉大3号的锉并用EALs测得根管工作长度。将各组测量值与拔牙后直视状态下测得的根管长度进行比较。结果初尖锉组测量根管工作长度的准确率为:手感法55%,Root ZX85%,Raypex-590%;扩一组、扩二组和扩三组依次分别为:Root ZX90%、90%、95%,Raypex-595%、100%、100%。结论电测法测定根管工作长度准确率高,临床根管预备不会降低EAL的精确性。     

Diagnostic根管电测仪测量根管长度准确性的实验研究

目的:评价第四代小卫星根管诊断机(Diagnostic SybronEndo)测量根管工作长度的准确性。方法:选择根尖孔发育完成的48个单根管且外形比较直的离体前牙,用15#K锉首先通过电子游标卡尺测量根管实际长度(L),得到实际工作长度值LA(LA=L-0.5 mm).在生理盐水琼脂模型上,在根管干燥状态下通过Diagnostic测量根管工作长度LD(电子测量仪显示距离解剖根尖孔0.5mm时根管长度),比较LA与LD之间的差值(IF值)并进行统计学分析。分别在根管内浸润有3%H2O2、0.9%NaCl、1.0%NaClO3情况下,用Diagnostic测量根管工作长度LD,分析比较在不同根管内容物状态下对Diagnostic测量值的影响。结果:以IF值在±0.5 mm为标准,Diagnostic在根管干燥状态下的测量准确率为93.4%。统计学分析显示根管在干燥状态和使用不同冲洗液体浸润根管时,Diagnostic测量根管工作长度LD值间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:Diagnostic测量根管工作长度的准确性不受根管内容物的影响,Diagnostic可以较为准确地测量出根管工作长度。     

Influence of the canal contents on the electrical assisted determination of the length of root canals

The purpose of this study was to compare the influence of the root canal status on the determination of the root canal length by an electronic apex locator in vital and necrotic canals and canals with root canal filling retrieval. One hundred seven teeth with a total of 171 canals with various contents (105 vital pulp, 47 necrotic pulp, and 19 retrieval of root canal filling materials) were measured for root canal length in vivo with the AFA Apex Finder. The distance between the file tip and the radiographic apex was also determined on radiographs. In 86% of the evaluated roots, the file tip position as indicated by the Apex Finder was located within 0.5 mm of a point 1.0-mm short of the radiographic apex. The Apex Finder showed higher accuracy for determining the apical constriction in vital canals (93.9%) than in necrotic canals (76.6%), and this difference was statistically significant (p < or = 0.05). The Apex Finder indicated the point -1 mm +/- 0.5 mm in canals with retrieval of root canal filling materials in 68.4% of these cases, but because of the small number of retrieval cases, this is not comparable statistically with vital and necrotic cases. The authors concluded that the AFA Apex Finder is highly accurate in vital canals.     

The accuracy of electronic working length determination

AIM: To determine in vivo the accuracy of two impedance quotient apex locators under clinical conditions. METHODOLOGY: Electronic working length determination was carried out before extraction in 79 human teeth with 93 root canals. In 51 root canals, the determination was performed using the apex locator Justy II(R) (Hager & Werken, Duisburg, Germany); in 42 canals, the apex locator Endy 5000(R) (Loser, Leverkusen, Germany) was used. A root canal instrument was fixed at working length with composite material prior to extraction followed by the exposure of a radiograph. After histological preparation of the apical region, the teeth were examined under a light microscope. The distance of the file tips to the target intervals 'minor foramen - major foramen' and 'apical canal constriction' was determined. These values were compared with the calculated working lengths, determined by radiographic assessment. The data were statistically analysed by a paired t-test. RESULTS: For both apex locators and both target intervals, no significant differences between the electronic and radiographical assessments were recorded. The probability of determining the area between minor and major foramen was 82.4% for Justy II and 81% for Endy 5000. However, accurate determination of the apical constriction was only successful in 51% (Justy II) and 64.3% (Endy 5000) of canals. Variation of the inaccurate measurements was higher for Endy 5000 than for Justy II. CONCLUSIONS: Under clinical conditions, it is possible to determine the region between the minor and major apical foramen with electronic length measuring devices (ELD). However, use of these devices does not result in precise determination of the apical constriction.