论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较3种机用镍钛器械对模拟树脂根管的成形能力。方法:将24个树脂根管随机分为3组,分别使用WaveOne、ProTaper Next及TF Adaptive机用镍钛器械预备根管。按厂家推荐方法进行根管成形,记录成形时间。使用单反相机对成形前、后的树脂根管拍照,通过特定软件叠加,测量距根尖孔不同位置的树脂去除量,并分析根管偏移情况和器械的中心定位能力。结果:WaveOne预备时间最短(P<0.05)。在根尖区,TF Adaptive的偏移量最小,其次是ProTaper Next(P<0.05)。在弯曲点冠方,3组偏移量差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:WaveOne成形效率最高,ProTaper Next和TF Adaptive也表现出良好的成形能力,3种机用镍钛器械均能较好地维持根管原始走向。
Objective: To compare the forming ability of three kinds of machine nickel-titanium instruments on simulated resin root canal. Methods: 24 resin root canals were randomly divided into 3 groups. The root canal was prepared by using WaveOne, ProTaper Next and TF Adaptive NiTi instruments respectively. Root canal shaping was performed according to the manufacturer’s recommended method, and the forming time was recorded. The SLR cameras were used to take pictures of the resin root canal before and after the imaging. The amount of resin removal at different positions from the apical foramen was measured by software stack, and the root canal deviation and the centering ability of the instrument were analyzed. Results: WaveOne had the shortest lead time (P <0.05). In the apical region, TF Adaptive has the smallest offset, followed by ProTaper Next (P <0.05). There was no significant difference in the offset between the three groups at the bending point (P> 0.05). Conclusion: WaveOne has the highest forming efficiency, ProTaper Next and TF Adaptive also show good forming ability. All the three kinds of machine nickel-titanium instruments can well maintain the original root canal.