[1]运伯延.不同根管再治疗器械与氯仿联合使用去除根管充填材料的效果[J].医学信息,2021,34(10):137-139.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2021.10.039]
　YUN Bo-yan.The Effect of Using Different Root Canal Retreatment Instruments in Combination with Chloroform to Remove Root Canal Filling Materials[J].Medical Information,2021,34(10):137-139.[doi:10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2021.10.039]
点击复制

不同根管再治疗器械与氯仿联合使用去除根管充填材料的效果()
分享到：

医学信息[ISSN:1006-1959/CN:61-1278/R]

卷:
34卷
期数:
2021年10期
页码:
137-139
栏目:
临床研究
出版日期:
2021-05-15

文章信息/Info

Title:
The Effect of Using Different Root Canal Retreatment Instruments in Combination with Chloroform to Remove Root Canal Filling Materials
文章编号:
006-1959（2021）10-0137-03
作者:
运伯延
（天津市红桥区口腔医院门诊，天津 300123）
Author(s):
YUN Bo-yan
(Outpatient Department,Stomatological Hospital of Hongqiao District,Tianjin 300123,China)
关键词:
氯仿; 镍钛器械; 根管再治疗; 根管壁清洁度
Keywords:
Chloroform; Nickel-titanium instruments; Root canal retreatment; Root canal wall cleanliness
分类号:
R781.05
DOI:
10.3969/j.issn.1006-1959.2021.10.039
文献标志码:
A
摘要:
目的 观察不同根管再治疗器械与氯仿联合使用去除根管充填材料效果。方法 选取2019年10月~2020年10月我院治疗的96例（96颗）患者为研究对象，按照随机数字表法将患者分为手用器械组、手用器械+氯仿组、R－endo组、R－endo+氯仿组、Mtwo R组、Mtwo R+氯仿组，各组16例，分别用手用器械和R－endo、Mtwo R机用镍钛再治疗锉并在不使用氯仿和联合氯仿情况下取出根管内充填材料，比较各组预备完成时间、到达工作长度所用时间、根尖孔碎屑量、根管壁残留充填物计分。结果 Mtwo R组预备完成时间、到达工作长度所用时间均短于手用器械和R－endo组，R－endo+氯仿组预备完成时间、到达工作长度所用时间均短于手用器械+氯仿和Mtwo R+氯仿（P＜0.05）；手用器械+氯仿组到达工作长度所用时间短于手用器械（P＜0.05），预备完成时间与手用器械组比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）；R－endo+氯仿组及Mtwo R+氯仿组预备完成时间、到达工作长度所用时间均短于R－endo组、Mtwo R组（P＜0.05）。R－endo组+氯仿组、Mtwo R组+氯仿组推出根尖孔碎屑量均少于R－endo+氯仿组、Mtwo R+氯仿组（P＜0.05），手用器械+氯仿组推出根尖孔碎屑量大于手用器械组（P＜0.05）。各组根管壁清洁度比较，差异无统计学意义（P＞0.05）。结论 不同根管再治疗器械与氯仿联合使用可提高去除根管充填材料工作效率，缩短工作时间，减少根尖孔碎屑量，但对高根管壁清洁度无影响，有待临床进一步深入研究。
Abstract:
Objective To observe the effect of using different root canal retreatment instruments in combination with chloroform to remove root canal filling materials.Methods A total of 96 patients (96 teeth) treated in our hospital from October 2019 to October 2020 were selected as the research objects.According to the random number table method, the patients were divided into the hand instrument group, the hand instrument + chloroform group, the R-endo group, the R-endo + chloroform group, the Mtwo R group, and the Mtwo R + chloroform group, with 16 cases in each group.Respectively use hand instruments and R-endo and Mtwo R nickel-titanium retreatment files, and remove the root canal filling materials without using chloroform and combined chloroform.Comparing the preparation completion time of each group, the time taken to reach the working length, the amount of apical foramen debris, and the scoring of the residual fillings on the root canal wall.Results The preparation completion time and the time to reach the working length of the Mtwo R group were shorter than those of hand equipment and R-endo group.The preparation completion time and the time to reach the working length in the R-endo+chloroform group were shorter than hand instruments+chloroform and Mtwo R+chloroform (P＜0.05);The time it took for the hand equipment + chloroform group to reach the working length was shorter than that of the hand equipment (P＜0.05),There was no statistically significant difference between the preparation completion time and the hand equipment group (P>0.05);R-endo+chloroform group and Mtwo R+chloroform group preparation completion time and time to reach the working length were shorter than R-endo group and Mtwo R group (P<0.05).The amount of apical foramen debris in the R-endo group + chloroform group, Mtwo R group + chloroform group was less than that of the R-endo+chloroform group and Mtwo R+chloroform group (P<0.05).The amount of debris in the apical foramen of the hand instrument + chloroform group was greater than that of the hand instrument group (P＜0.05).There was no significant difference in the cleanliness of the root canal wall in each group (P>0.05).Conclusion The combined use of different root canal retreatment instruments and chloroform can improve the efficiency of removing root canal filling materials, shorten the working time, and reduce the amount of apical foramen debris, but it has no effect on the cleanliness of the high root canal wall. Further clinical research is needed.

参考文献/References:

[1]董丽敏,李冰,武啸,等.乳磨牙根管治疗后树脂嵌体修复效果评价[J].广东牙病防治,2019,27(5):314-317.[2]王欢欢,蒋勇,韩晓兰.两种根管充填糊剂去除效果的体外研究[J].安徽医科大学学报,2016,51(3):422-425．[3]吴洪斌,吴迪,孙德刚.两种镍钛根管再治疗器械与System B携热器联合应用去除根管内充填物效果评价[J].中国实用口腔科杂志,2015,8(7):423-426[4]谭青松,陶小玲,彭彬.镍钛再治疗器械去根管充填材料后的器械损伤评价[J].牙体牙髓牙周病学杂志,2014,24(6):346-349.[5]Akhlaghi NM,Bajgiran LM,Naghdi A,et al.The minimum residual root thickness after using Pro Taper,Ra Ce and Gates-Glidden drills:A cone beam computerized tomography study[J].European Journal of Dentistry,2015,9(2):228.[6]庄沛林,郑美华,韦佩伶,等.两种根管再治疗镍钛器械去除椭圆形弯曲根管内充填物的效果评价[J].实用口腔医学杂志,2014,28(3):373-377. [7]Simsek N,Keles A,Ahmetoglu F,et al.Comparison of different retreatment techniques and root canal sealers:a scanning electron microscopic study[J].Braz Oral Res,2014,28(1):1-7.[8]吴洪斌,吴迪,孙德刚.两种镍钛根管再治疗器械与System B携热器联合应用去除根管内充填物效果评价[J].中国实用口腔科杂志,2015,8(7):423-426.[9]Jiang S,Zou T,Li D,et al.Effectiveness of Sonic,Ultrasonic,and Photon-Induced Photoacoustic Streaming Activation of Na OCl on Filling Material Removal Following Retreatment in Oval Canal Anatomy[J].Photomedicine and Laser Surgery,2016,34(1):3-10.[10]苏瑞芬.根管治疗术在牙周牙髓联合病变治疗中的应用效果研究[J].医学信息,2016,29(30):64-65.[11]Vidal FT,Nunes E,Horta MC,et al.Evaluation ofthree different rotary systems during endodonticretreatment—Analysis by scanning electron microscopy[J].J Clin Exp Dent,2016,8(2):e125-e129.[12]吴亚娟,曹雪娇,花荣,等.不同镍钛器械预备根管后根尖偏移的CBCT比较研究[J].口腔医学,2015,35(5):338-340.[13]Tanalp J,Güngor T.Apical extrusion of debris:a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment[J].International Endodontic Journal,2014,47(3):211-221.[14]陈敬天.不同根管预备方法影响根管壁应力分布的研究[J].山西医药杂志,2016,45(10):1152-1153.

更新日期/Last Update: 1900-01-01