Hülsmann M, Bluhm V
Department of Operative Dentistry, Preventive Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Göttingen, Göttingen, Germany.
Int Endod J. 2004 Jul;37(7):468-76. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00823.x.
To evaluate the efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of three different rotary nickel-titanium instruments with and without a solvent (eucalyptol) versus hand files in the removal of gutta-percha root fillings.
Eighty extracted single-rooted anterior teeth were enlarged to size 35 and obturated with laterally condensed gutta-percha using AHPlus as the sealer. Removal of gutta-percha was performed with the following devices and techniques: FlexMaster, GT Rotary, ProTaper and Hedström files. All techniques were used with and without the solvent eucalyptol. The following data were recorded: time taken to reach the calculated working length and time required for the removal of gutta-percha. The teeth were split longitudinally and photographed. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was scored using the projected slides with a total magnification of approximately 70x. Statistical analysis was performed using the two-way anova (P < 0.001) for the analysis of working time.
The technique that reached the working length most rapidly was that using ProTaper instruments and eucalyptol (+E), followed by FlexMaster + E, ProTaper, FlexMaster, Hedström files + E, GT Rotary + E, Hedström files, and GT Rotary. No significant differences were found for retreatment with or without a solvent in all groups. ProTaper and FlexMaster worked significantly more rapidly than Hedström files and GT Rotary (anova, P < 0.001). Time for complete removal of gutta-percha was again shortest with ProTaper + E, followed by FlexMaster + E, ProTaper, FlexMaster, GT Rotary + E, Hedström files + E, Hedström files, and GT Rotary. ProTaper and FlexMaster again worked significantly faster than the other techniques (anova, P < 0.001). There was no visible filling material extruded apically. Root canal cleanliness proved best following the use of FlexMaster + E, and Hedström files + E, followed by ProTaper + E, and GT Rotary + E.
Under the experimental conditions, FlexMaster and ProTaper NiTi instruments proved to be efficient and time-saving devices for the removal of gutta-percha. The use of eucalyptol as a solvent shortened the time to reach the working length and to remove the gutta-percha, but this was not significant.
评估三种不同的旋转镍钛器械在使用和不使用溶剂(桉叶油醇)的情况下与手动锉相比,在去除牙胶根充物方面的疗效、清洁能力和安全性。
选取80颗拔除的单根前牙,扩锉至35号,使用AHPlus作为封闭剂,采用侧向加压法用牙胶进行根管充填。使用以下器械和技术去除牙胶:FlexMaster、GT Rotary、ProTaper和Hedström锉。所有技术均在使用和不使用溶剂桉叶油醇的情况下进行。记录以下数据:达到计算工作长度所需的时间以及去除牙胶所需的时间。将牙齿纵向劈开并拍照。使用总放大倍数约为70倍的投影幻灯片对根管壁的清洁度进行评分。使用双向方差分析(P < 0.001)对工作时间进行统计分析。
最快速达到工作长度的技术是使用ProTaper器械和桉叶油醇(+E),其次是FlexMaster + E、ProTaper、FlexMaster、Hedström锉 + E、GT Rotary + E、Hedström锉和GT Rotary。所有组在使用或不使用溶剂进行再治疗时均未发现显著差异。ProTaper和FlexMaster的工作速度明显快于Hedström锉和GT Rotary(方差分析,P < 0.001)。ProTaper + E完全去除牙胶的时间再次最短,其次是FlexMaster + E、ProTaper、FlexMaster、GT Rotary + E、Hedström锉 + E、Hedström锉和GT Rotary。ProTaper和FlexMaster的工作速度再次明显快于其他技术(方差分析,P < 0.001)。根尖未见明显的充填材料挤出。使用FlexMaster + E和Hedström锉 + E后根管清洁度最佳,其次是ProTaper + E和GT Rotary + E。
在实验条件下,FlexMaster和ProTaper镍钛器械被证明是去除牙胶高效且省时的器械。使用桉叶油醇作为溶剂缩短了达到工作长度和去除牙胶的时间,但差异不显著。