Thermafil根管充填技术的临床评价

目的 :研究Thermafil根管充填技术的效果。方法 :选择牙髓病或根尖周病患者 60例 ,按就诊顺序随机分为 2组。即Thermafil根管充填组 (TC组 )和冷牙胶侧方加压充填组 (LC组 )。对 2组的根管充填时间、术中疼痛情况和根管充填效果进行比较。术后 3个月和 6个月进行复查 ,并拍摄X线片。结果 :以牙为单位 ,TC组适充 18颗 ,超充 11颗 ,欠充 1颗 ;在LC组中 ,适充 2 7颗 ,超充 3颗 ,无欠充 (P <0 .0 5)。TC组术中不适 4颗 ,LC组 2颗 (P >0 .0 5)。以根管为单位 ,根管充填时间Thermafil充填技术组平均 3 6.6s/根管 ,LC组平均 2 47.4s/根管 (P <0 .0 1)。结论 :Thermafil充填技术临床操作简便省时 ,但容易造成超充

Evaluation of root canal filling with Thermafil

Objective: To observe the effects of Thermafil obturat ion technique.Methods: 60 premolars with pulp pathema or periapical dese ase were divided into two groups with 30 in each at random,The teeth were treate d and the root canals were obturated by Thermafil obturation technique and later al condensation technique respectively. Preoperative and postoperative radiograp hs of each tooth were taken. Obturation time, incidence of pain during obturatio n and quality of obturation were compared.Results: Overfi lling was found in 11 cases in Thermafil group,while 3 in lateral condensation group( P <0.05).Pain during obturation was observed in 4 cases in Thermafil gr oup and 2 in lateral condensation group( P >0.05).The average obturation tim e per canal of Thermafil and lateral condensation technique was 36.6 s and 247 .4 s respectuively ( P <0.01). Conclusion: Thermafil obt uration is faster and simpler than lateral condensation technique,but is more likely to result in overfilling.