天津医药

天津医药 ›› 2017, Vol. 45 ›› Issue (3): 289-293.doi: 10.11958/20161299

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

锥形束 CT 评价 ProTaper Universal、 ProTaper Next 和M3 的根管成形能力

王天△， 李桂红   

  1. 天津市口腔医院， 南开大学口腔医院牙体牙髓病一科 （邮编 300041）
  • 收稿日期:2016-11-08 修回日期:2016-12-10 出版日期:2017-03-15 发布日期:2017-03-21
  • 通讯作者: 王天 E-mail:dentistwangtian@126.com

Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of the canal shaping ability with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next and M3 in preparation of curved root canals

WANG Tian△, LI Gui-hong   

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Stomatological Hospital of Nankai University, Stomatological Hospital of Tianjin, Tianjin 300041, China
  • Received:2016-11-08 Revised:2016-12-10 Published:2017-03-15 Online:2017-03-21
  • Contact: WANG Tian E-mail:dentistwangtian@126.com

PDF (PC)

3935

摘要： 摘要： 目的 应用锥形束 CT 比较 ProTaper Universal、 ProTaper Next 与 M3 预备弯曲根管的成形效果。方法 选取符合标准的上颌第一前磨牙弯曲单根管 60 个， 按弯曲度分为中度弯曲 （10°～25°） 组和重度弯曲 （26°～75°） 组， 每组 30 例。依照弯曲程度每组再随机分为 3 小组， PU 组、 PN 组和 M3 组（n=10）， 分别用 ProTaper Universal、 ProTaperNext 和 M3 进行根管预备。预备前后进行锥形束 CT 扫描， 记录根管预备时间， 预备前后的形态图像， 测量距根尖 2、5、 8 mm 处根管近、 远中侧的根管壁厚度， 计算根管偏移量以及轴中心率。结果 PN 组、 M3 组重度弯曲根管预备时间较 PU 组明显缩短、 效率高。重度弯曲根管中， PU 组有 1 根 S1 发生变形， PN 组和 M3 组器械在预备平均 5 个根管后都未出现变形。3 组均无器械折断。在距根尖孔 5 mm 处， PN 组和 M3 组中、 重度弯曲根管内侧牙本质去除量均小于 PU 组， 3 组弯曲根管外侧牙本质去除量无明显差异。在距根尖孔 2 mm 处， 重度弯曲根管中 PN 组的偏移量最小， 在距根尖孔 5 mm 处， PN 组和 M3 组中、 重度弯曲根管偏移量均小于 PU 组。在距根尖孔 5 mm 处， PN 组和 M3组重度弯曲根管轴中心率均高于 PU 组。结论 ProTaper Next 和 M3 预备弯曲根管时能较好地保持原有根管形态，省时省力， 值得推广。

关键词: 根管制备, 锥束计算机体层摄影术, ProTaper Next, M3, ProTaper Universal, 锥形束 CT, 上颌第一前磨牙

Abstract: Abstract：Objective To evaluate the shaping ability of ProTaper Universal (PU), ProTaper Next (PN) and M3 in preparation of curved root canals by CBCT (cone-beam computed tomography). Methods Sixty extracted maxillary first premolars were divided into two groups according to the canal curvature:10°-25° group and 26°-75°group. Then, each group was divided into PU group, PN group and M3 group and prepared with three instruments respectively. Canals were scanned by CBCT scanner before and after preparation. The efficacy of canal preparation was analyzed. The width of dentine removed was measured at three points (2 mm, 5 mm and 8 mm to root tip). The apical transportation indexes and the centring ratio values were recorded. Results PN group and M3 group needed less time in preparation and showed more efficiency than those of PU group in 26°-75° groups. One of root canals in PU group appeared deformation, neither PN group nor M3 group appeared deformation after 5 root canal preparations in average. None instrument was broken in three groups. PU group removed more materials at internal walls than PN group and M3 group at internal walls of root canals in 5 mm from the apex.There was no difference in the offset of the external walls of root canals. Compared with the offset of the internal and external walls of root canals in 2 mm from the apex, the apical transportations prepared by the PN group were less than those of M3 group and PU group in 26°-75° groups. Compared with the offset of the internal and external walls of root canals in 5 mm from the apex, the apical transportations prepared by the PN group and M3 group were less than those of PU group, and theircentring ratio values were greater than those of PU group in 26°-75°groups. Conclusion ProTaper Next and M3 tested in this study are effective and time-saving in shaping curved root canals. The results indicate that both ProTaper Next and M3 are comparable to optimally enlarge root canal.

Key words: root canal preparation, cone-beam computed tomography, ProTaper Next, M3, ProTaper Universal, CBCT, maxillary first premolars