口腔医学研究

口腔医学研究 ›› 2018, Vol. 34 ›› Issue (12): 1316-1319.DOI: 10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2018.12.013

• 龋病牙髓病学研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

两种通畅锉疏通上颌磨牙MB2的根管偏移及效率的对比研究

李俊亮1,杨卫东1,文珊辉2,黎景景1,陈苏蕾1,周楠1*   

  1. 1. 南京大学医学院附属口腔医院,南京市口腔医院牙体牙髓科 江苏 南京 210008;
    2. 南京大学医学院附属口腔医院,南京市口腔医院放射科 江苏 南京 210008
  • 收稿日期:2018-07-04 出版日期:2018-12-28 发布日期:2018-12-27
  • 通讯作者: 周楠,E-mail: zhounan0408@126.com
  • 作者简介:李俊亮(1982~ ),男,湖北孝感人,硕士,主治医师,从事牙体牙髓病、常温流动牙胶、CBCT三维重建研究。
  • 基金资助:
    江苏省重点研发计划(社会发展)项目(编号:BE2016623)江苏省第十四批“六大人才高峰”项目(编号:2017-WSW-086)南京市医学科技发展项目(编号:YKK15113)南京市科技计划项目(编号:201605043)

Canal Transportation and Efficiency of Two Kinds of Files to Prepare the MB2 of Maxillary Molar.

LI Jun-liang1, YANG Wei-dong1, WEN Shan-hui2, LI Jing-jing1, CHEN Su-lei1, ZHOU Nan1*   

  1. 1. Department of Endodontics, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China;
    2. Department of Radiology, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University, Nanjing 210008, China.
  • Received:2018-07-04 Online:2018-12-28 Published:2018-12-27

PDF (PC)

198

摘要： 目的: 比较ProGlider和PathFile疏通上颌磨牙MB2根管偏移及效率。方法: 120颗离体上颌磨牙,CBCT筛选出具有MB2的牙齿63颗,开髓后探查MB2,纳入42颗上颌磨牙,随机分别用ProGlider和PathFile疏通,记录每颗牙疏通时间。CBCT评价疏通前后距根尖3 mm、5 mm、7 mm及根管偏离中心第一点(b点)处的偏移量及轴中心率。结果: ProGlider组疏通时间显著短于PathFile。在距根尖3 mm、7 mm处根管偏移量无显著差异;在距根尖5 mm处和b点处,ProGlider组少于PathFile组。在距根尖3 mm、5 mm、7 mm处轴中心率,两组间无显著差异;在b点处,ProGlider组显著优于PathFile组。结论: ProGlider及PathFile均能高效疏通上颌磨牙MB2,均有较好中心定位能力,ProGlider在根管弯曲处成形能力优于PathFile。

关键词: 通畅锉, 上颌磨牙, 根管偏移, 根管疏通

Abstract: Objective: To compare the canal transportation and preparation efficiency of ProGlider and PathFile to prepare the MB2 of maxillary molar.Methods: 63 teeth with MB2 were obtained from 120 extracted maxillary molars in vitro using CBCT scanning.The MB2 was examined after opening the pulp chamber, and 42 teeth with MB2 were obtained.They were randomly divided into two groups.The root canals were prepared with ProGlider and PathFile, respectively.The preparation time was recorded.CBCT scanning was performed before and after preparation to evaluate the root canal transportation and centering ratio at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apex and the most curved point.Results: The preparation time of ProGlider was significantly shorter than PathFile.There was no significant difference in mean transportation value between two groups at 3 mm and 7 mm levels.But ProGlider showed a significantly lower mean transportation value than PathFile at 5 mm levels and the most curved point.There was no significant difference in the centering ability between two groups at 3 mm, 5mm and 7 mm levels.But ProGlider showed a significantly better centering ability than PathFile at the most curved point.Conclusion: Both ProGlider and PathFile could prepare MB2 of maxillary molar efficiently and show good centering ability.The shaping ability of ProGlider was better than PathFile at the most curved point.

Key words: Glide path files, Maxillary molar, Canal transportation, Root canal preparation