不同根充糊剂在根管治疗中的临床疗效比较

目的：评价不同糊剂在根管治疗中的临床疗效。方法：2006年6月～2009年12月就诊的309例患者327颗患牙,随机分为A组（METAPEX组）103例110个牙齿,B组（AH-Plus组）103例108个牙齿及C组（氧化锌丁香油糊剂组,ZOE）103例109个牙齿。分别使用三种根充糊剂加牙胶尖进行根管充填,通过观察比较各组术后一周内发生疼痛等急症反应的情况和一年的总有效率。结果：根管充填1周内三组患牙全部复查,A、B、C组术后急症发生率分别为9.1%、10.2%、23.9%,三组比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0.05）。C组与B组或与A组比较,差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.05）;A组与B组比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。根管充填1年后三组患牙全部复查,A、B、C组术后1年成功率分别为91.8%、93.5%、90.8%,差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）。X线片检查示,A组病例中,部分糊剂出现吸收,根尖骨组织透射影明显修复。B组中见侧支根管存在阻射影者6例。结论：METAPEX糊剂和AH-Hus糊剂根充效果良好且无明显差别。

Different paste on the effect of root canal therapy

Objective：To evaluate the effect of different paste on root canal therapy.Method：309 cases of dental clinic patients in our hospital from June 2006 to December 2009,were randomly divided into group A （METAPEX group） 103 cases,with 110 teeth,group B（AH-Plus group）103 cases,with 108 teeth and group C （Zno clove oil paste group） 103 cases,with 109 teeth.Postoperative pain occurs within a week of such emergency response and the total effective rate in a year was compared.Result：The root canal filling within 1 week with three groups,and all teeth in group A,B and C were reviewed,respectively.The response rates were 10.2 %,23.9 % and 9.1 %,respectively,which showed significant difference（P 0.05）.And the difference between group C and A,between group C and B were both significant （P 0.05）.However,it showed no significant difference between group A and B （P 0.05）.Root canal filling after 1 year checking,the success rates in group A,B and C were 90.8 % 93.5 % 91.8 %,respectively,which showed no significant difference（P 0.05）.Part of root paste was absorbed in group A after X-ray checking.The root canal with reluctance existed in 6 cases of group B.Conclusion：AH-Hus and METAPEX paste filling were proved having good effect.