论文部分内容阅读
目的比较不同预备和充填方法组合对根管峡区的充填效果。方法选取2014年12月至2015年6月中国医科大学附属口腔医院口腔外科门诊患者因正畸治疗拔除的上颌前磨牙60颗,随机分为4组,每组15颗。A组:采用机用ProTaper镍钛锉根管预备+连续波热牙胶充填;B组:采用机用Pro Taper镍钛锉根管预备+冷侧压充填;C组:采用不锈钢K锉根管预备+热牙胶充填;D组:采用不锈钢K锉根管预备+冷侧压充填。各组牙齿充填完成后将根尖5 mm内牙根垂直牙长轴每隔1 mm切片,放在显微镜下观察记分。采用SPSS 17.0统计软件比较分析各组间的差异,检验水准α=0.05。结果 C组在根管峡区充填效果最差,与A、B、D组之间比较差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05),A、B、D组充填效果两两之间比较差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论不锈钢K锉和热牙胶连续波充填技术组合不适合根管峡区的充填。
Objective To compare the filling effect of different preparation and filling methods on root canal Gap area. Methods From December 2014 to June 2015, 60 patients with maxillary premolars removed from orthodontics in Oral Hospital of Stomatology Hospital of China Medical University were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 15 each). Group A: ProTaper nickel titanium filer root canal preparation + continuous wave hot tooth glue filling; Group B: machine Pro Taper nickel titanium file root canal preparation + cold side pressure filling; Group C: stainless steel K file root canal Preparation + hot tooth glue filling; D group: stainless steel K file root canal preparation + cold side pressure filling. After filling the teeth in each group, the root long axis perpendicular to the tooth root 5 mm long every 1 mm section, placed under a microscope to observe the score. SPSS 17.0 statistical software was used to compare and analyze the differences among groups. The test level α = 0.05. Results The filling effect in group G was the worst, and the difference between group A, group B and group D was statistically significant (P <0.05). The difference in filling effect between group A, group B and group D was significant No statistical significance (P> 0.05). Conclusion The combination of stainless steel K-file and hot gutta continuous wave filling technology is not suitable for the filling of root canal gorge area.