三种机用镍钛器械的根管成形能力比较

Comparison of the shaping ability of three NiTi rotary instruments in the preparation of simulated curved root canals

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 shaping ability of three NiTi instruments in simulated root canals. Methods：A total of 24 simulated resin blocks were divided randomly into 3 groups ： WaveOne, ProTaper Next and TF Adaptive. Each group consisted of 8 root canals. The shaping time was measured. Pre-and post-shaping photographs were taken by precise camera and superimposed through Photoshop software. The dentin removed from the inner and outer canal walls at 9 points beginning at 0 mm from the foramen were measured with ImagePro Plus software. Centering ability was determined according- ly. Results ： WaveOne was much faster than any other groups （ P 〈 0.05 ）. At the apical curvature, transportation was the least with TF Adaptive ,followed by Protaper Next（ P 〈 0.05 ）. There were no significant differences in 3 groups with respect to co- ronal curvature transportation（ P 〉 0.05 ）. Conclusion： Under the conditions of this study, WaveOne was the most efficient in- strument. TF Adaptive and Protaper Next also showed good shaping ability. In general, all the instruments respected original canal curvature well and were safe to be used.