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.     

根管长度电测法准确性及其影响因素的探讨

目的:探讨JUSTY-Ⅱ电测仪测量根管工作长度的准确性及其影响因素。方法:选择148颗患牙,其中牙髓炎71颗,牙髓坏死46颗,根尖周炎31颗。随机分为2组,分别用指感法和电测法测量根管工作长度,以X线片影像为参照,用χ2检验比较其结果,并分析各临床病变类型、根管干湿状态和根管扩大等因素对电测法准确性的影响。结果:电测法准确率为87.84%,指感法为43.24%,2组有高度显著性差异(P<0.01)。根尖周炎组准确率与牙髓炎组、牙髓坏死组有显著性差异(P<0.05)。根管干湿状态对测量结果无影响,扩根前后准确率有显著性差异(P<0.05)。结论:电测法是一种准确、操作简便的测量根管工作长度的方法。根尖周组织的炎症以及根管扩大,均会降低其准确性。     

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…     

根管测量仪测定不同类型患牙工作长度准确性的探讨

目的:探讨不同类型患牙应用根管测量仪测量根管长度的准确性。方法:选择88例需要根管治疗的病例,共122颗患牙,均为单根牙,其中牙髓炎组62颗,根尖周炎组60颗。两组分别采用Root ZX根管测量仪测量根管工作长度并与X线法计算的根管工作长度比较,了解其应用在不同患牙时的准确性。结果:应用根管测量仪牙髓炎组的准确率优于根尖周炎组。结论:电测法测定根管工作长度快速、准确,但对较复杂的患牙,需用X线辅助校正电测法的结果。     

根管长度测量仪在根管预备中的应用

目的评价RootZX电子根管长度测量仪测量根管工作长度的准确性和实用性。方法选择门诊患者180颗牙共320个根管,随机分为2组。试验组90颗牙164个根管,用根管长度测量仪测量其工作长度,进行根管预备和充填,术后拍片;对照组90颗牙共156个根管,用X线牙片法确定根管的工作长度,进行根管预备和充填,术后拍片。结果RootZX组和X线组两组间比较根充结果差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论ZootZX根管长度测量仪在根管预备中能准确、快速的测量出根管长度。     

根管内血液对根尖定位仪Raypex5测量准确性的影响

目的:通过体外实验评价根管内血液对根尖定位仪Raypex5测量牙齿工作长度准确性的影响.方法:选择单根管离体牙30颗,用直接测量法取得根管实际长度.用生理盐水琼脂模型作为体外测试模型,用Raypex5分别在根管干燥、内有部分血液、充满血液3种情况下测量根管工作长度.结果:直接测量法与电测法数据进行比较,测量值间差异无统...     

根管锉尖直径对Root ZX测量仪准确性影响的研究

目的:研究根管预备时根管锉尖直径对Root ZX根管长度测量仪精确度的影响.方法:40颗正畸减数离体下颌前磨牙,15#不锈钢根管锉测量预备前根管的真实长度.K锉分别根管预备至主锉为40#(常规预备)和60#(过度预备),离体牙植入20 g/L的琼脂生理盐水凝胶巾,15～40#和15～60#K锉分别再次测量预备后根管的工作长度.所有测量值进行方差分析.结果:根管锉尖直径和根管扩大程度对测最仪的准确性有显著性影响(P＜0.05),最大测量值筹别为0.22 mm.结论:根管预备完成后,使用锉尖直径较小的根管锉会使电测根管工作长度变小,根管预备完成后或根充前应选用与根管直径匹配的根管锉再次确认根管工作长度.     

不同根管冲洗液对根管长度测定仪测量准确性的影响

目的体外研究不同根管冲洗液对根管长度测定仪(Root ZX)测量准确性的影响。方法选用30颗离体牙(50个根管)及琼脂凝胶模型,在3%过氧化氢、0.9%NaCl、0.12%洗必泰液、17?TA和干燥根管五种环境下,用Root ZX测定根管的长度;以测量根管实际长度为对照。结果五种环境下,Root ZX测定的根管长度与根管实际长度无显著性差异(P＞0.05);电测值与实际值相比,准确率达到90.4%．结论Root ZX测量准确性不受根管介质影响;与根管干燥和潮湿无关。     

牙髓状态对Neosono Co-pilot 根尖定位仪准确性的影响

目的 观察牙髓状态对Neosono Co-pilot根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度准确性的影响.方法 选择患牙201颗、根管375个,分为牙髓坏死组、牙髓失活组和活髓组,均采用Neosono Co-pilot 根尖定位仪和X线数字成像法测量根管工作长度,以后者评价前者的准确性,并比较各组间差异.结果 Neosono Co-pilot根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度的准确率在牙髓坏死组、牙髓失活组和活髓组分别为92.6%、91.7%、86.0%,3组间准确率差异无统计学意义(P＞0.05).结论 Neosono Co-pilot根尖定位仪对根管工作长度的测量准确性较高,且不受牙髓活力的影响.     

RootZX测量仪测定根尖吸收牙齿工作长度的准确性

目的:研究RootZX全自动根管长度测量仪测定根尖区吸收牙齿工作长度的准确性。方法:将80颗离体前牙平均分成甲、乙2组,其中乙组用700#裂钻深入根尖孔钻入3mm,破坏根尖狭窄处。将2组牙齿分别置于测量槽中,使用RootZX全自动根管长度测量仪测量工作长度,计算测得的工作长度与肉眼下测量的根管长度的差值A,比较RootZX全自动根管长度测量仪测量2组工作长度的准确性。结果:RootZX全自动根管长度测量仪测量甲组的准确率为95%,测量乙组的准确率为85%,但2组准确率的差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:对于根尖狭窄区破坏的牙齿,使用RootZX全自动根管长度测量仪测量的工作长度具有较高的准确性。     

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。     

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。     

Raypex5根尖定位仪在测量根管工作长度中的临床应用

目的评价Raypex5根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度与X线法的符合性。方法用Raypex5根尖定位仪对205颗患牙共403个根管进行根管工作长度测量，以此长度进行根管预备充填后拍摄X线片观察根管充填的质量。结果Raypex5根尖定位仪测量根管工作长度后根管适充率为96．28％。结论Raypex5根尖定位仪是一种准确可靠安全有效根管工作长度测量仪器。     

Digora及Propex测量根管工作长度准确性的比较研究

目的：评价数字化牙片系统Digora及电子根尖定位仪Propex测量根管工作长度的准确性,为临床应用提供参考依据。方法???选取临床中需拔牙的90例患者260颗患牙（369个牙根）为研究对象,首先对患牙拍摄数字化牙片,利用Digora系统中的长度工具测量牙片上牙齿根管长度,然后对患牙开髓,电子根尖定位仪Propex测量根管工作长度,最后拔除患牙直视下测量根管实际长度并以此长度为标准,计算Digora牙片测量法、Propex电测法与实际根管长度的差值,分别以1、1.5?mm误差评定两法测量根管工作长度的准确性。结果???牙片法测量值与拔牙实测值差值为（2.163±1.194）mm,电测法测量值与拔牙实测值差值为（0.214±0.542）mm。以1?mm内为可接受范围,牙片法准确率为21.68%,电测法为91.87%;若以1.5?mm以内为可接受范围,则两法准确率分别为30.35%、95.66%。牙片法准确率均明显低于电测法（P<0.01）。结论??采用Digora系统长度工具直接测量牙片上根管长度时,误差较大,不能直接指导临床操作。Propex能较准确地测量根管工作长度。     

Raypex 5根尖定位仪测定牙根管长度的准确率及影响因素分析

目的 观察Raypex 5根尖定位仪测定牙根管长度的准确率,探讨影响准确率的因素.方法 选择210例牙髓病及根尖周病患者,其中225颗患牙含416个根管,先用手感法测量长度,再用根尖定位仪测定长度,充填主牙胶尖后在数字化X线成像系统上拍片确定牙齿工作长度,两者对比并进行统计学处理.结果 Raypex 5根尖定位仪测定牙根管长度准确率为93.99％,手感法准确率为74.76％.两者差异具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）;根尖定位仪测量单根管至四根管的准确率明显高于手感法,两者间的差异也具有统计学意义（P＜0.05）.结论 Raypex 5根尖定位仪测定牙根管长度操作简便,较少的X线辐射,准确率较高.     

Root ZX根尖电测仪测定根管长度的准确性评价

目的：评价Root ZX根尖电测仪测定根管长度的准确性。方法：49颗(70个根管)根尖发育完全、因正畸需拔除的牙齿在局麻下，开髓、拔髓。Root ZX根尖电测仪测定根管长度，拔除后测定根管实长，比较二者的差异。分别以0．5mm、1．0mm、1．5mm误差评定测量结果的准确性。结果：体内测量平均根管长度为20．81mm，体外测量根管实际长度为21．21mm。84．29％(59／70)测量值位于根管内，8．57％(6／70)恰好位于根尖孔，7．14％(5／70)超出根尖孔。以0．5mm为标准，准确率为64．29％，以1．0mm为标准，准确率为81．43％。若以1．5mm以内为可接受范围，则准确率为90％。结论：Root ZX根尖电测仪能较准确测定根管工作长度，提高根管治疗的质量和工作效率。但仍需和X线照片结合指导临床工作。     

Accuracy of a new apex locator: an in vitro study

AIM: The purpose of this study was to test in an in vitro model the accuracy of a Bingo 1020 electronic apex locator, to compare the results to those of a well known apex locator, Root ZX, as well as to those of the radiographic method of tooth length determination. METHODOLOGY: A total of 120 extracted teeth, preserved in Thymol solution and kept refrigerated, was used for the study. The experiment was performed on single-rooted teeth and on one-root canal, chosen randomly, in multirooted teeth. The teeth were randomly divided into 12 groups of 10 teeth each. After access preparation, the actual length (AL) was measured. The teeth were embedded in an alginate model specially developed for testing apex locators. Electronic tooth length measurements (EL) were carried out prior to root canal preparation using the two electronic apex locators (EAL) - Root ZX and Bingo 1020; three measurements were taken and an average computed. After the third measurement, the file was left in the root canal and a periapical radiograph was taken. The radiographic length (RL) was recorded by measuring the file length from the coronal reference point to the tip of the file. Each root canal was then prepared to a no. 40 K-file diameter using a standardized technique; saline was used for irrigation. Upon completion of the root canal preparation, EL measurements were taken by each EAL in dry conditions and with different irrigation solutions. Each measurement was repeated three times. The RL was recorded according to the last EL measurement. Results were subjected to statistical analysis. RESULTS: In all parameters tested, a significant statistical difference was found between Bingo 1020 and the Root ZX. Measurements obtained using the Bingo 1020 were consistently closer to the AL (0.08 mm) than those obtained using the Root ZX. Both EALs measured the tooth length with great accuracy and a positive correlation of 0.76 (P = 0.00) existed between the two devices. No significant difference was found between the two apex locators when measurements were taken with the different irrigants (P = 0.34) and the content of the root canal did not affect the accuracy of the measurements. Lengths obtained by calculations from the radiographs were longer than the AL as well as the length obtained by both EALs (P = 0.00). CONCLUSIONS: The Bingo 1020 proved to be as reliable as Root ZX and was user friendly. Under the experimental conditions, electronic measurements were more reliable than radiographs in the process of root length determination.     

Electronic determination of root canal length in primary teeth with and without root resorption

AIM: To test an electrical device for determining root canal length in primary teeth in vitro, and to compare it with the radiographic length measurement. METHODOLOGY: Two examiners determined the root canal length of 24 extracted maxillary primary incisors (12 with visible root resorption and 12 without) using an electrical root canal meter (Tri Auto ZX, Morita, Dietzenbach, Germany). The instrument was left in the root canal after the second examination and a radiograph was taken. The whole tooth was cleared by immersion in methylsalicylate and subsequently photographed. Both radiographs and photographs of cleared teeth were measured and compared with the electronic measurements. RESULTS: The evaluation of the radiographs showed a mean distance between the instrument tips and apices of 0.60 (+/- 0.41) mm; evaluation of the cleared teeth showed an equivalent distance of 0.62 (+/- 0.40) mm. The mean distance between instrument tip and acceptable working length (determined with the clearing method) was 0.26 (+/- 0.24) mm in teeth without resorption and 0.29 (+/- 0.30) mm in teeth with resorption. CONCLUSION: The presence of resorption in primary teeth did not affect the accuracy of electrical measurement of root canal length in vitro. The application of this method in primary teeth should be evaluated further.