iRoot SP与Cortisomol糊剂对一次性根管治疗术后发生急症反应的影响

目的：比较iRoot SP根管充填材料与Cortisomol根管充填糊剂对一次性根管治疗术后患者发生急症反应的影响，为材料的选择提供参考。方法选择我院2015年9月至2016年3月口腔门诊牙髓炎及慢性根尖周炎患者86例，采用数表法随机分为两组，A组43例(47颗恒牙)采用iRoot SP根管充填材料，B组43例(46颗恒牙)采用Cortisomol根管充填糊剂，比较两组患者术后1~2 d和7 d的急症反应发生情况。结果两组患者术后1~2 d急症反应发生率均为4.65%，7 d急症反应发生率均为2.33%，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 iRoot SP根管充填材料与Cortisomol根管充填糊剂术后急症反应发生率均较低，但两种材料的特点不同，可根据需要选择使用。

Effect of iRoot SP and Cortisomol paste on emergency response after one-time root canal therapy

Objective To compare the effect of root canal filling with iRoot SP and Cortisomol paste on emer-gency response in patients after one-time root canal therapy, and to provide reference for the selection of materials. Methods From September 2015 to March 2016, 86 patients with pulpitis or chronic periarthritis of root in Dental De-partment were divided into two groups according to random number table. Group A (43 cases, 47 permanent teeth) used iRoot SP for root canal filling, and group B (43 cases, 46 permanent teeth) applied Cortisomol paste for root canal filling. The emergency responses of patients on postoperative 1-2 d, 7 d were compared between the two groups. Results The incidences of emergency response in group A and group B were both 4.65%on postoperative 1-2 d, and both 2.33%on postoperative 7 d, with no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P>0.05). Conclusion iRoot SP and Cortisomol paste as root canal filling materials both have a lower incidence of postoperative emergency response, but the characteristics of the two materials are different, which should be chosen as needed.