Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Conservative Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan.
J Endod. 2010 Mar;36(3):532-5. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.11.015.
This study compared three techniques for preparing oval-shaped root canals: Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET), hand instruments (Hedström files; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and rotary nickel-titanium (EndoWave; Morita, Osaka, Japan) instruments with regard to cleaning ability and final canal shape.
Three groups each of 13 extracted human mandibular premolars with oval-shaped canals were used. After canal preparation, teeth were sectioned at three levels (coronal, middle, and apical), photographed to assess cross-sectional canal shape, and processed for histologic evaluation of canal wall planing and the presence of debris.
None of the techniques resulted in completely prepared and cleaned canals. No significant difference was found among the three techniques with regard to untouched surface, cross-sectional area, remaining fins, and canal shape at the three levels. Rotary NiTi instruments resulted in significantly less debris in the apical third compared with AET and hand instrumentation.
AET did not perform better than rotary NiTi or hand instruments in oval-shaped canals.
本研究比较了三种预备卵圆形根管的方法：解剖学根管预备技术（AET）、手用器械（Hedström 锉；Dentsply Maillefer，Ballaigues，瑞士）和镍钛机动器械（EndoWave；Morita，大阪，日本），从清洁能力和最终根管形态两方面进行评价。
每组 13 颗下颌前磨牙，共 3 组，均具有卵圆形根管。根管预备后，将牙齿在 3 个部位（冠方、中 1/3 和根尖 1/3）横断，拍照评估根管的横截面形态，然后进行组织学评估，观察根管壁预备和碎屑的情况。
三种方法均未预备出完全成形且清洁的根管。三种方法在未预备表面、横截面面积、残余的牙本质嵴和三个部位的根管形态方面，差异均无统计学意义。与 AET 和手用器械相比，镍钛机动器械在根尖 1/3 产生的碎屑明显更少。
在卵圆形根管中，AET 并不比镍钛机动器械和手用器械表现更好。
