根管预备后超声冲洗的临床研究

目的 对不同方法根管预备后超声冲洗进行临床评估。方法 将121例患者144颗患牙，随机分成四组：手用不锈钢K锉组；手用不绣钢K锉＋超声冲洗组；机用不锈钢K锉组；机用不绣钢K锉＋超声冲洗组。手用不绣钢K锉采用逐步深入法预备根管，机用不绣钢K锉采用逐步后退法预备根管。比较四组根管预备后疼痛发生情况率、根管充填质量、根尖偏移和倜枝根管充填情况，以及根管充填一年疗效观察。结果各组根管预备后疼痛无显著性差异（P〉0．05）。超声组侧枝根管充填率高于单纯手用和机用组。术后一年复查98颗，相应各组无显著性盖异（P〉0．05）。结论 根管预备后超声冲洗，对降低术后疼痛及提高临床治疗有效率无明显效果；但可以提高侧枝根管充填率。

Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation after root canal preparation

Objective To clinically evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation after different canal preparations.Methods One hundred and forty-four teeth collected from 121 patients were randomly divided into 4 groups.Group1:stainless-steel K file hand instrument;Group 2:stainless-steel K file hand instrument plus ultrasonic irrigation;Group3: stainless-steel K file M4 handpiece;Group4: stainless-steel K file M4 handpiece plus ultrasonic irrigation.Two techniques of root canal preparation were used: step-down technique using hand instrumentation;and step-back technique using M4 handpiece.Postoperative pain,root canal fillings,and one-year successful rates were evaluate.Results The postoperative pain was not significantly different among four groups(P>(0.05)).The number of lateral canal obturation was higher in the group of ultrasonic irrigation than both groups of only hand instrumentation and M4 handpiece.The one-year successful rates were not significantly different among groups(P>0.05).Conclusion The ultrasonic irrigation after root canal preparation was not more efficient in reducing postoperative pain or increasing one-year successful rates;but it could increase the number of lateral canal obturation.