采用两种方法确定根管工作长度的对比研究

Comparative study of using two different methods to confirm the root canal working length

[目的]研究传统法和根测仪法确定根管工作长度后行根管充填的效果,评价两者的准确性和优缺点。[方法]选择需要做根管治疗的患者162人,前后牙根管总数共272个,根据就诊顺序随机分为传统法136个根管和根测仪法136个根管两组。传统法根据医生探测根管时的手感、患者的疼痛感和拍X光片来确定根管工作长度,根测仪法采用日本JUSTY-Ⅱ根测仪来确定根管工作长度。然后常规行根管充填,拍X光片记录根管充填情况。[结果]传统法和根测仪法适充数分别为96例和100例,适充率为70．59％和73．53％,经统计学分析P>0．05,两者之间无显著性差异。[结论]传统法和根测仪法都可以作为临床医生确定根管工作长度的有效方法。根测仪法的优点是操作简便、迅速省时,准确性高、可避免X线损伤,但同时也存在一些不足,不能完全代替传统法。

[Objective] To study the effect of root canal filling after confirm the canal working length by using traditional method and endometer method, and to evaluate their veracity, advantages and disadvantages. [Methods] 162 patients need root canal therapy including 272 root canals were divided into two study groups randomly, in which each group had 136 root canals. Then they were measured using traditional method and endometer method respectively. The traditional method is that the dentist confirm the canal working length according to his feeling of the hand when detecting the root canals, the patients sense of pain and X - ray radiographs; while endometer method is that the dentist confirm the canal working length by using JUSTY-Ⅱ endometer made in Japan, then fill the root canals routinely and note the filling effect by X- ray radiographs. [Results] There were 96 root canals suitably filled in the traditional method group while 100 root canals in the endometer method group, that is the suitable filling rates were 70.59% and 73.53% respectively. Finally all the data were analyzed by statistical method and the result was P 〉 0.05, that is there was no statistical difference between the two study groups. [Conclusion] Both of the two methods are effective for dentists to confirm the root canal working length in clinic, while the endometer method is more convenient, rapid and veracious, and it can avoid X- ray trauma too, but there is also some shortage in it and it can not replace the traditional method.