[Objectives]This study is to investigate the difference in the comprehensive effects of the two types of machine-used nickel-titanium(ni-ti)instruments in removing root canal filling materials to provide guidance for ...[Objectives]This study is to investigate the difference in the comprehensive effects of the two types of machine-used nickel-titanium(ni-ti)instruments in removing root canal filling materials to provide guidance for clinical applications.[Methods]We selected 60 single-tube premolars and randomly divided them into a P group(ProTaper ni-ti file group)and a K group(K3 ni-ti file group).The root canal was prepared according to the uniform standard crown cutting and manual k-file stepwise regression method.The root canal was fully filled and the X-ray film was taken.X-rays were taken again after re-treatment.The removal rate of the root filler material was obtained using Auto CAD 2000 image analysis software.[Results]We found no statistical difference in the clearance and total time of the two nickel-titanium devices in removing the gum filling material.Both the ProTaper ni-ti file and the K3 ni-ti file were able to remove most of the root canal filling during root canal retreatment.[Conclusions]There was no significant difference between the two devices in clinical applications.展开更多
Intracanal instrument fracture is an unpredictable and problematic occurrence that can prevent adequatecleaning and shaping procedures and influence the prognosis of endodontic treatment. The prevalence of instrument ...Intracanal instrument fracture is an unpredictable and problematic occurrence that can prevent adequatecleaning and shaping procedures and influence the prognosis of endodontic treatment. The prevalence of instrument fracture is reported to range between 0.28% and 16.2%. This article presents an overview of the prevention and management of instruments fractured during endodontic therapy on the basis of literature retrieved from Pub Med and selected journal searches. Instrument fracture occurs because of reduced metal fatigue and/or torsional resistance. The reasons include canal morphology and curvature, manufacturing processes and instrument design, instrument use times and technique, rotational speeds and operator experience. With the development of various equipment and techniques, most of the retained instrument separations can be removed safely. However, in canals without associated periapical disease not every fractured separation should be removed from difficult locations because of the increased risk for root perforation and fracture. In difficult cases, either retain or bypass the fragment in the root canal and ensure regular follow-up reviews. Fractured instruments retained in the presence of periapical disease reduce significantly the prognosis of endodontically treated teeth, indicating a greater need to attempt the removal or bypass of the file separations. Apical surgery might be required in some instances, emphasizing the importance of preventing instrument fracture.展开更多
目的比较不同机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中的临床应用效果。方法回顾性分析2021年1月至2021年6月于河南中医药大学第一附属医院口腔科行磨牙根管治疗的72例患者的临床资料,根据采用机用镍钛器械的不同分为A组、B组和C组各24例。所有患...目的比较不同机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中的临床应用效果。方法回顾性分析2021年1月至2021年6月于河南中医药大学第一附属医院口腔科行磨牙根管治疗的72例患者的临床资料,根据采用机用镍钛器械的不同分为A组、B组和C组各24例。所有患者均接受后牙根管治疗,A组采用Wave One Gold机用镍钛器械治疗,B组采用Protaper Gold机用镍钛器械治疗,C组采用Protaper Universal机用镍钛器械治疗。比较三组每个根管预备时间、根管充填质量、临床疗效、牙根微裂情况及术后疼痛情况。结果A组患者的每个根管预备时间为(29.35±4.20)s,明显短于B组的(87.42±8.56)s和C组的(88.23±8.79)s,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但B组、C组患者的每个根管预备时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组、B组、C组患者的根管充填质量合格率分别为92.13%、96.47%、94.81%,治疗的总有效率分别为95.83%、91.67%、95.83%,牙根微裂发生率分别为4.17%、4.17%、8.33%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后24 h内,三组患者的术后疼痛分级比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论Wave One Gold、Protaper Universal、Protaper Gold机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中疗效确切,相比于Wave One Gold,Protaper Universal、Protaper Gold的预备时间较长,且三者均不会明显增加牙根微裂发生率与术后疼痛程度。展开更多
文摘[Objectives]This study is to investigate the difference in the comprehensive effects of the two types of machine-used nickel-titanium(ni-ti)instruments in removing root canal filling materials to provide guidance for clinical applications.[Methods]We selected 60 single-tube premolars and randomly divided them into a P group(ProTaper ni-ti file group)and a K group(K3 ni-ti file group).The root canal was prepared according to the uniform standard crown cutting and manual k-file stepwise regression method.The root canal was fully filled and the X-ray film was taken.X-rays were taken again after re-treatment.The removal rate of the root filler material was obtained using Auto CAD 2000 image analysis software.[Results]We found no statistical difference in the clearance and total time of the two nickel-titanium devices in removing the gum filling material.Both the ProTaper ni-ti file and the K3 ni-ti file were able to remove most of the root canal filling during root canal retreatment.[Conclusions]There was no significant difference between the two devices in clinical applications.
文摘Intracanal instrument fracture is an unpredictable and problematic occurrence that can prevent adequatecleaning and shaping procedures and influence the prognosis of endodontic treatment. The prevalence of instrument fracture is reported to range between 0.28% and 16.2%. This article presents an overview of the prevention and management of instruments fractured during endodontic therapy on the basis of literature retrieved from Pub Med and selected journal searches. Instrument fracture occurs because of reduced metal fatigue and/or torsional resistance. The reasons include canal morphology and curvature, manufacturing processes and instrument design, instrument use times and technique, rotational speeds and operator experience. With the development of various equipment and techniques, most of the retained instrument separations can be removed safely. However, in canals without associated periapical disease not every fractured separation should be removed from difficult locations because of the increased risk for root perforation and fracture. In difficult cases, either retain or bypass the fragment in the root canal and ensure regular follow-up reviews. Fractured instruments retained in the presence of periapical disease reduce significantly the prognosis of endodontically treated teeth, indicating a greater need to attempt the removal or bypass of the file separations. Apical surgery might be required in some instances, emphasizing the importance of preventing instrument fracture.
文摘目的比较不同机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中的临床应用效果。方法回顾性分析2021年1月至2021年6月于河南中医药大学第一附属医院口腔科行磨牙根管治疗的72例患者的临床资料,根据采用机用镍钛器械的不同分为A组、B组和C组各24例。所有患者均接受后牙根管治疗,A组采用Wave One Gold机用镍钛器械治疗,B组采用Protaper Gold机用镍钛器械治疗,C组采用Protaper Universal机用镍钛器械治疗。比较三组每个根管预备时间、根管充填质量、临床疗效、牙根微裂情况及术后疼痛情况。结果A组患者的每个根管预备时间为(29.35±4.20)s,明显短于B组的(87.42±8.56)s和C组的(88.23±8.79)s,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),但B组、C组患者的每个根管预备时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05);A组、B组、C组患者的根管充填质量合格率分别为92.13%、96.47%、94.81%,治疗的总有效率分别为95.83%、91.67%、95.83%,牙根微裂发生率分别为4.17%、4.17%、8.33%,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);术后24 h内,三组患者的术后疼痛分级比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论Wave One Gold、Protaper Universal、Protaper Gold机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中疗效确切,相比于Wave One Gold,Protaper Universal、Protaper Gold的预备时间较长,且三者均不会明显增加牙根微裂发生率与术后疼痛程度。
