两种镍钛器械预备根管的临床研究

目的比较两种机用镍钛器械Twisted Files（TF）和Protaper预备根管的临床效果。方法患牙髓炎或根尖周炎需进行根管治疗的患牙60颗,随机分为2组,分别使用TF锉（TF组）和Protaper锉（P组）采用根向技术预备根管,2组均采用热牙胶垂直加压充填根管。比较2组根管预备的成形效果、预备时间、预备前后工作长度、预备术后疼痛评分。结果 2组均能形成较好的根管流畅度,预备前后的锥度评价比较,差异无统计学意义（χ2=1.381,P=0.240）;预备时间P组为12.24 min,TF组为8.69 min,TF组的预备时间短于P组（F=60.18,P〈0.001）;两组预备前后工作长度差值P组为（0.09±0.46）mm,TF组为（0.20±0.33）mm,差异无统计学意义（t=1.06,P=0.29）,预备后2组疼痛评分差异无统计学意义（Z=-0.72,P=0.47）。结论 TF锉和Protaper锉均有良好的根管预备能力,TF锉预备时间较短,切割效率较高。

Clinical study of two types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments in root canal preparation

Objective To compare the clinical effects of two types of NiTi rotary instruments： twisted Files（ TF） and Protaper in preparation of teeth root canals. Methods Root canal preparation of sixty teeth with pulpitis or periodontitis were performed with TF or Protaper instruments using crowm-down technique. All the root canals were obturated with vertical condensation method using warm gutta-percha. The efficiency of preparation,the operating time,the working length before and after the preparation and postoperative pain score were analyzed. Results Two types of instruments could keep the original curvature and there was no significant difference between the two types instruments in the taper of canals. The operating time of TF was shorter than that of Protaper（ P 0. 001）. For the lost working length and postoperative pain score： there were no significant difference between the two types instruments. Conclusion Two types of NiTi rotary instruments showed better shaping ability,whereas TF was time saving and higher cutting efficiency.