Suppr超能文献

两种旋转镍钛器械(Profile.04和GT旋转锉)根管预备的比较。

Comparison of root canal preparation with two rotary NiTi instruments: ProFile .04 and GT Rotary.

作者信息

Rödig T, Hülsmann M, Kahlmeier C

机构信息

Department of Operative Dentistry, Preventive Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Göttingen, Germany.

出版信息

Int Endod J. 2007 Jul;40(7):553-62. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01270.x. Epub 2007 May 18.

Abstract

AIM

To compare root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and GT Rotary nickel-titanium instruments (both Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland).

METHODOLOGY

Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures between 20 and 40 degrees were randomly divided into two groups and embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 using ProFile .04 or GT rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of root canal curvature, postoperative root canal cross-section, cleaning ability, safety issues and working time.

RESULTS

Both NiTi systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was <1 degrees . The majority of the root canals prepared with ProFile .04 (80.8%) and GT (84.0%) postoperatively showed a round or oval cross-section. For debris, ProFile .04 and GT rotary achieved 67.1% and 71.6% scores of 1 and 2, respectively. Concerning the coronal region statistical analysis showed a better result for GT than for ProFile .04. For the middle and apical thirds of the root canals, results did not differ significantly. None of the two systems completely removed smear layer. Ten procedural incidents occurred with ProFile .04 compared with five with GT. Mean working time was shorter for ProFile .04 (131.8 s) than for GT (143.7 s); the difference was not significant.

CONCLUSIONS

Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Smear layer removal was not satisfactory with either systems.

摘要

目的

比较使用Profile.04和GT旋转镍钛器械(均为瑞士拜莱格的登士柏迈丽菲公司生产)进行根管预备的效果。

方法

选取50颗近中根管弯曲度在20至40度之间的拔除下颌磨牙,随机分为两组并嵌入马弗炉系统。所有根管均使用Profile.04或GT旋转器械预备至45号。评估以下参数:根管弯曲度的矫正、术后根管横截面、清洁能力、安全性问题及工作时间。

结果

两种镍钛系统均能很好地保持根管弯曲度;平均矫正度数<1度。使用Profile.04(80.8%)和GT(84.0%)预备的大多数根管术后呈圆形或椭圆形横截面。对于碎屑,Profile.04和GT旋转器械分别获得67.1%和71.6%的1分和2分。关于冠部区域,统计分析显示GT的结果优于Profile.04。对于根管的中三分之一和根尖三分之一,结果无显著差异。两种系统均未完全去除玷污层。Profile.04发生了10起操作事故,而GT发生了5起。Profile.04的平均工作时间(131.8秒)比GT(143.7秒)短;差异不显著。

结论

两种系统均能很好地保持原始根管弯曲度且使用安全。两种系统去除玷污层的效果均不令人满意。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验