不同再治疗器械去除根充物效果的比较研究

目的：评价H锉、ProTaper Universal Retreatment和D-RaCe 3种根管再治疗器械去除根充物的效果。方法：将45颗因正畸拔除的单根管下颌前磨牙行根管充填后随机分为3组（n＝15）,分别用H锉（A组）、ProTaper Uni－versal Retreatment（B组）和D－RaCe（C组）再治疗锉配合氯仿溶剂去除根充物,记录到达工作长度的时间（T1）、预备完成所用总时间（T2）,收集根尖外推出物并称重,从颊舌向和近远中向拍摄数码X线片,用Auto－CAD软件测量根管壁上残留充填物的覆盖面积,并评价其占整个根管壁面积的百分比。结果：所有样本根管内均有充填物残留,A组管壁充填物的残留量最少,明显低于B、C组（P＜0．05）,C组管壁充填物的残留量最多,高于B组（P＜0．05）。与手用H锉相比,应用机用镍钛器械再治疗锉显著减少了再治疗所需的时间（P＜0．05）;B和C两组耗时无统计学差异（P＞0．05）。B组根尖外推出物最多,高于C组和A组（P＜0．05）。结论：使用机用镍钛再治疗器械,根管内残留物和根尖外推出物较多,但可缩短操作时间。     

3种器械去除根管内牙胶充填物的效果评价

目的：比较H型锉和两种再治疗镍钛旋转器械去除根充物的效果。方法：45颗离体单根管下颌前磨牙,使用ProTaper镍钛器械根管预备,热牙胶垂直加压根管充填。标本随机分为3组（n=15）用不同方法去除根充物。A组H型锉、B组ProTaper Universal和C组Hero Shaper,分别记录再治疗所用时间。将标本沿牙体长轴纵劈,用立体显微镜观察根管壁残留的牙胶,t检验和单因素的方差分析one way ANOVA进行统计学分析。结果：B组根管内残留充填物的量较其他两组更少（P〈0.05）;B、C两组操作时间明显短于A组（P〈0.05）,而B、C两组间,C组用时较少,但没有显著性差异。结论：根管再治疗中,所有器械均会残留根充物,ProTaper Universal镍钛再治疗器械可以有效去除单根管下颌前磨牙根管内充填物。     

3种不同根管治疗器械对根管充填物清除效果的比较研究

目的比较G钻+手动K锉、Protaper再治疗镍钛锉、Reciproc单只锉在根管再治疗中对牙胶的清除效果及推出根尖孔碎屑量。方法选择60颗离体单根管牙进行根管预备、充填、玻璃离子封闭30 d,随机分成3组,每组20颗,分别用G钻+不锈钢手动K锉(A组)、Protaper再治疗锉(B组)及Reciproc单只锉(C组)去除根管充填物,采用根尖X线片和扫描电镜的方法评估根管内的充填物去除的情况,比较3组样本牙根管充填物的清除效果;记录去除充填物所用的操作时间;用称量的方法计算每组推出根尖孔的牙胶碎屑的量。结果 3组样本牙根管壁均有残留的充填物,B,C两组根管壁残留的充填物明显低于A组(P<0.05),C组清除效果优于B组(P<0.05)。和A组相比,B,C组均可以减少再治疗时间(P<0.05)。推出根尖孔的碎屑量A组最多,其次是B组,C组最低(P<0.05)。结论镍钛器械无论是在清除效果、操作时间、推出根尖孔碎屑量上都优于手动器械;Reciproc单只锉优于Protaper再治疗锉。     

3种器械去除椭圆形根管内充填物的效果研究

目的：研究两种镍钛器械和手用不锈钢器械去除椭圆形根管内充填物的效果。方法：45颗具有椭圆形根管的下颌前磨牙经逐步后退法预备、热牙胶垂直加压充填后随机分为3组,分别用ProTaper再治疗器械和ProTaper器械,Mtwo再治疗器械和Mtwo器械,手用H锉和K锉去除牙胶。测量各组中充填物的残留量及各个器械使用的时间。结果：手用器械组充填物的残留量百分比明显低于ProTaper组和Mtwo组,但操作时间高于ProTaper组和Mtwo组。结论：椭圆形根管内,使用机用镍钛器械可以减少操作时间,但是残留的根管充填物较多。     

旋转镍钛器械与手用不锈钢器械去除根充物的效果评价

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。     

3种机用镍钛器械去除根管内充填材料的比较研究

目的：研究3种机用镍钛器械去除根管内充填材料的能力。方法：80颗下颌第二前磨牙采用改良双敞技术预备根管,热牙胶垂直加压技术充填根管。水浴37℃2周后分为4组,去除根管内牙胶充填物：A组为H锉;B组为机用Protaper;C组为K3;D组为Hero642。记录操作时间。将牙根纵劈,显微镜下观察根管内整体及上、中、下3部分的残留物并评分。将结果进行统计学分析。结果：对于去除根管内充填物,B组所需时间最短,但B、C、D3组之间并无显著性差异;且3组均快于A组（P〈0.05）。观察牙根整体及各部分的残留物,A组残留物显著性高于其它3组（P〈0.05）,而B、C、D3组两两之间均无统计学差异。各组均无器械折断。结论：3种机用镍钛器械均不能完全去除根管内充填材料。但同H锉相比,镍钛器械去除效果更好且操作时间显著减少。     

ProTaper Universal再治疗系统去除根管内充填物的体外研究

分别采取2 种方法去除离体上前牙根管内充填物.A组:ProTaper Universal再治疗锉(D1、D2、D3);B组:K锉+丁克除(Desocclusol).记录操作时间和根管内充填物残留情况. A组操作时间明显短于B组(P<0.05);A组根管清洁程度高于B组,但差异无显著性(P>0.05).ProTaper Universal 再治疗锉去除根管内充填物安全、快速、有效.     

ProTaper镍钛系统去除根管内充填物的效果评价

比较ProTaper镍钛系统去除不同充填方法的根管内充填物的效果。A组:侧方加压法充填;B组:热牙胶垂直加压法充填。2组均采用ProTaper Universal再治疗器械(D1,D2,D3)+ProTaper Universal(F2,F3,F4)去牙胶及根管再预备,测量镍钛器械操作时间及根管内充填物的残留量。B组根管壁充填物残留量低于A组,镍钛器械所需时间高于A组。2组中牙胶残留物均主要位于根尖三分之一区域。ProTaper镍钛系统去除垂直加压法充填的牙胶管壁清洁度较高。     

Hero642镍钛机动器械根管再治疗清理效果的扫描电镜观察

目的：评价Hero642镍钛机动根管预备器械用于根管再治疗的清理效果。方法：选取临床拔除的36个单根管前牙，随机分为A、B、C3组，用改良式逐步后退法进行根管预备，牙胶尖与碧兰糊剂侧方加压充填根管。30d后，分别采用以下器械与方法去除根管内充填物：A组为不锈钢手用H锉与氯仿；B组为Hero642镍钛机动器械与氯仿；C组为Hero642镍钛机动器械与电热式牙胶加热器。记录操作时间。纵剖样本，扫描电镜下观察根尖1／3、根中1／3、冠1／3的碎屑与玷污层。结果：在根管中段和尖段，C组根管壁的碎屑和玷污层较A、B组少，A组与C组间存在统计学差异（P〈0．05）；在冠1／3处，3种方法对根管的清理效果无统计学差异（P〉0．05）。B组与C组的操作时间明显少于A组，具有统计学差异（P〈0.01）。结论：使用Hero642镍钛机动根管预备器械结合电热式牙胶加热器能有效去除根管内牙胶充填物并节省操作时间，值得在临床推广。     

机用镍钛锉去除根管旧充填物能力的体外研究

目的研究0.04锥度的镍钛锉去除根管旧充填物的能力.方法将30颗单根管前牙分成A、B、C三组,每组10颗.用K型锉行根管颈备、牙胶尖+氧化锌侧压法充填.放置30天后用不同的方法去除根管旧充填物A组为K型锉+氯仿组;B组为镍钛锉+氯仿组;C组为单纯应用镍钛锉组.记录操作时间、氯仿用量.将牙根纵劈,立体镜下观察牙根整体及其不同水平的残留物情况,将结果进行统计学分析.结果对于根管整体的残留物量,C组少于A组,存在显著性差异(P=0.007),其余的实验组间无显著性差异(P＞0.05).对于操作时间,B、C两组均少于A组(P＜0.05),B、C两组间无显著性差异(P＞0.05).B组的氯仿用量少于A组(P＜0.05).结论同K型锉相比,机用镍钛锉去除根管旧充填物更为完善且操作时间显著减少.     

两种根管再治疗镍钛器械去除椭圆形弯曲根管内充填物的效果评价

目的:评价2种根管再治疗镍钛器械去除椭圆形弯曲根管内充填物的效果。方法:离体的80颗根管呈椭圆形且弯曲的下颌前磨牙经Hero642预备、热牙胶垂直加压充填后随机分为4组,分别用ProTaper Universal、R-Endo、Hero642和手用H锉去除根充物,测量各组根充物的残留量百分比和操作时间。结果:4组样本均有根充物残留,ProTaper Universal、R-Endo和Hero642组根充物残留量百分比、操作时间均少于手用H锉组(P<0.01),前3组间的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:ProTaper Universal、R-Endo机动镍钛器械对椭圆形弯曲根管内充填物的清除效果优于手用器械,且可减少操作时间,但仍不能彻底清除根充物。     

Desocclusol和氯仿辅助去除根充材料的体外研究

目的 研究Desocclusol和氯仿辅助去除根充材料的能力,为临床根管再治疗寻找新型的根充物辅助溶剂提供依据.方法 选择因正畸需要拔除的离体上颌双根双根管第一前磨牙40颗,经开髓、根管预备后随机分为4组,每组10颗牙,20个根管.A组:普通根充糊剂和牙胶尖根充后用Desocclusol和K锉去除根充物.B组:普通根充糊剂和牙胶尖根充后用氯仿和K锉去除根充物.C组:碧兰CORTISOMOL永久性根充糊剂和牙胶尖根充后用Desocclusol和K锉去除根充物.D组:碧兰CORTISOMOL永久性根充糊剂和牙胶尖根充后用氯仿和K锉去除根充物.分别记录各组成功去除根充物的根管数、操作时间、失败情况及原因.各组之间操作时间的比较采用t检验.结果 4组成功去除根充物的根管数分别为18、19、20、18个.操作时间比较,A组与B组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.5),A组与C组差异无统计学意义(P＞0.5),C组少于D组(P＜0.01),B组少于D组(P＜0.01).结论 Desocclusol是有效的根充物的辅助溶剂.     

微焦点CT技术评价镍钛再治疗器械去根管内充填材料的效果

目的：利用微焦点CT技术定量比较两种镍钛再治疗器械与手用不锈钢器械去根管内充填材料的效果。方法：30颗离体前牙经逐步后退法预备根管后行冷侧方加压充填,随机分为3组,分别使用K锉、ProTaper D和Mtwo R去根管内充填物。再治疗前后分别对实验牙进行微焦点CT扫描,CT图像处理软件处理图像,计算根管内中1/3段和尖1/3段充填材料体积并比较其残留充填材料体积百分数。结果：在根管中1/3段,Mtwo R组根管残留充填材料体积百分数均数最小,与其他两组根管中1/3段间存在显著性差异（P〈0.05）。结论：在本实验条件下,K锉、Mtwo R和ProTaper D这3种器械在去根管内充填材料时,Mtwo R组清理效果最好。     

Efficacy of different rotary instruments for gutta-percha removal in root canal retreatment

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of FlexMaster, ProTaper, and RaCe rotary instruments compared with Hedstr?m files for removal of gutta-percha during retreatment. Sixty mandibular premolars with one single straight canal were instrumented with K-type files and filled using cold lateral compaction and sealer. The teeth were randomly divided into four groups of 15 specimens each. After repreparation with Gates Glidden burs and the test instruments the specimens were cleared. The area of remaining gutta-percha/sealer on the root canal wall was measured from two directions. The RaCe group showed significantly less residual obturation material than FlexMaster and Hedstr?m group (p < 0.05; closed test procedure). There was no difference between ProTaper and all other instruments (p > 0.05). ProTaper and RaCe instruments required significantly less time for retreatment than FlexMaster and Hedstr?m files (p < 0.05). One RaCe file, two ProTaper, and two FlexMaster instruments separated. RaCe cleaned obturated canals more effectively than hand files and FlexMaster files.     

Efficacy of ProTaper universal retreatment files in removing filling materials during root canal retreatment

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of the ProTaper Universal System rotary retreatment system and of Profile 0.06 and hand instruments (K-file) in the removal of root filling materials. Forty-two extracted single-rooted anterior teeth were selected. The root canals were enlarged with nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files, filled with gutta-percha and sealer, and randomly divided into 3 experimental groups. The filling materials were removed with solvent in conjunction with one of the following devices and techniques: the ProTaper Universal System for retreatment, ProFile 0.06, and hand instruments (K-file). The roots were longitudinally sectioned, and the image of the root surface was photographed. The images were captured in JPEG format; the areas of the remaining filling materials and the time required for removing the gutta-percha and sealer were calculated by using the nonparametric one-way Kruskal-Wallis test and Tukey-Kramer tests, respectively. The group that showed better results for removing filling materials was the ProTaper Universal System for retreatment files, whereas the group of ProFile rotary instruments yielded better root canal cleanliness than the hand instruments, even though there was no statistically significant difference. The ProTaper Universal System for retreatment and ProFile rotary instruments worked significantly faster than the K-file. The ProTaper Universal System for retreatment files left cleaner root canal walls than the K-file hand instruments and the ProFile Rotary instruments, although none of the devices used guaranteed complete removal of the filling materials. The rotary NiTi system proved to be faster than hand instruments in removing root filling materials.     

Efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta-percha removal from root canals

Aim To evaluate the efficacy of the ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta‐percha (GP) removal from root canals. Methodology Root canals of 60 extracted human maxillary anterior teeth were prepared and filled with laterally condensed GP and AH Plus sealer. Teeth were divided into three groups: group A – GP removal completed with the ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system and with further canal repreparation accomplished with ProTaper Universal rotary instruments; group B – GP removal was completed using Gates Glidden drills and Hedström files with chloroform as a solvent, followed with further canal repreparation with ProTaper Universal rotary instruments; group C – the same as group B for GP removal with further canal preparation with stainless steel K‐flex files (Kerr). The operating time was recorded. Teeth were rendered transparent for the evaluation of the area of remaining GP/sealer in bucco‐lingual and mesial–distal directions. Statistical analysis was performed by using repeated measures analysis of variance and anova . Results The ProTaper Universal technique (group A) resulted in a smaller percentage of canal area covered by residual GP/sealer than in groups B and C, with a significant difference between groups A and C (P < 0.05). Mean operating time for group A was 6.73 min, which was significantly shorter (P < 0.05) than group B (10.86 min) and group C (13.52 min). Conclusions In this laboratory study all test techniques left GP/sealer remnants within the root canal. The ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system proved to be an efficient method of removing GP and sealer from maxillary anterior teeth.