三种热处理镍钛系统预备弯曲根管效率及碎屑推出比较
|
摘要
目的研究比较Pro Taper Next(PTN)、K3XF和HyFlex CM(HF)3种热处理镍钛机动系统预备弯曲根管至不同工作宽度时的根尖碎屑推出情况及预备效率。方法收集未行根管治疗、牙根完整、根尖发育完全、无牙根内外吸收或根管钙化的恒磨牙,选择弯曲度为20°~45°、初尖锉号数为10~#的独立根管72个,按照镍钛系统(PTN、K3XF、HF)随机分为3组,每组再按工作宽度(25~#、30~#、40~#)分为3个亚组(n=8)。记录各组完成根管预备的时间,收集并称量各组推出根尖孔的牙本质碎屑量。采用单因素方差分析对数据进行统计分析,Tukey post hoc test进行两两比较。结果 PTN预备根管至25~#、30~#、40~#时的碎屑推出量分别为(0.37±0.09)、(0.43±0.14)、(0.42±0.15)mg,K3XF预备至25~#、30~#、40~#时的碎屑推出量分别为(0.47±0.13)、(0.50±0.16)、(0.47±0.15)mg,HF预备至25~#、30~#、40~#时的碎屑推出量分别为(0.88±0.19)、(0.91±0.20)、(0.80±0.15)mg。预备至同一工作宽度时,HF组根尖碎屑推出量大于PTN组和K3XF组(F_(25)=28.700,P_(25)<0.001;F_(30)=19.292,P_(30)<0.001;F_(40)=15.190,P_(40)<0.001)。终末工作宽度增大时,3种镍钛系统的碎屑推出量均无显著增加(P>0.05)。预备根管至25~#和30~#时,3组器械预备时间差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。预备至40~#,PTN组用时[(173.1±18.0)s]比K3XF组[(220.5±29.7)s]和HF组[(227.6±22.3)s]少,差异具有统计学意义(F=12.369,P=0.001)。结论与HF相比,PTN和K3XF预备弯曲根管时碎屑推出较少。当预备至较大工作宽度时,PTN的预备效率较高。
Objective To evaluate the efficiency and amount of apically extruded debris whenpreparing curved root canal to different apical working width using ProTaper Next(PTN),K3XF and HyFlex CM(HF). Methods Extracted molars meeting the following criteria were collected:without rootcanal treatment,mature apex,without root resorption and calcification. Seventy-two canals with thecurvature between 20 and 45 degrees and apical patency with a size 10 K-file were recruited in this study.The canals were randomly assigned to 3 groups according to the instruments(PTN,K3 XF,HF). Eachgroup were divided into 3 subgroups based on the apical working width(size 25,30,40). The apicallyextruded debris of each group were collected and dried in preweighted centrifugal tubes,and then assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal preparation was also recorded.The level of significance was determined by One-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test for amultiple comparison procedure. Results The amount of apical debris of PTN in three subgroups(size 25,30,40)were(0.37 ± 0.09),(0.43 ± 0.14),(0.42 ± 0.15)mg respectively. As for K3XF,the debris weightof three subgroups were(0.47 ± 0.13),(0.50 ± 0.16),(0.47 ± 0.15)mg respectively. And about HF,thedebris weight of three subgroups were(0.88 ± 0.19),(0.91 ± 0.20),(0.80 ± 0.15)mg respectively. HFextruded significantly more debris than PTN and K3XF at the same apical working width(F_(25)= 28.700,P_(25)<0.001;F_(30)= 19.292,P_(30)<0.001;F_(40)= 15.190,P_(40)<0.001). No significant differences were foundrelated to the apical working width(P>0.05). The instrumentation time with PTN which was(173.1 ±18.0)s showed significantly shorter time than K3XF with(220.5 ± 29.7)s and HF with(227.6 ± 22.3)sat apical working width of size 40(F = 12.369,P = 0.001). But no significant differences were found amongthree rotary systems at apical working width of size 25 and 30(P>0.05). Conclusions In the preparationof curved root canals,HF extruded significantly more debris than PTN and K3XF. PTN was faster than K3XF and HF when canals were prepared to a large apical size.
Objective To evaluate the efficiency and amount of apically extruded debris whenpreparing curved root canal to different apical working width using ProTaper Next(PTN),K3XF and HyFlex CM(HF). Methods Extracted molars meeting the following criteria were collected:without rootcanal treatment,mature apex,without root resorption and calcification. Seventy-two canals with thecurvature between 20 and 45 degrees and apical patency with a size 10 K-file were recruited in this study.The canals were randomly assigned to 3 groups according to the instruments(PTN,K3 XF,HF). Eachgroup were divided into 3 subgroups based on the apical working width(size 25,30,40). The apicallyextruded debris of each group were collected and dried in preweighted centrifugal tubes,and then assessed with an electronic balance. The total time required to complete root canal preparation was also recorded.The level of significance was determined by One-Way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test for amultiple comparison procedure. Results The amount of apical debris of PTN in three subgroups(size 25,30,40)were(0.37 ± 0.09),(0.43 ± 0.14),(0.42 ± 0.15)mg respectively. As for K3XF,the debris weightof three subgroups were(0.47 ± 0.13),(0.50 ± 0.16),(0.47 ± 0.15)mg respectively. And about HF,thedebris weight of three subgroups were(0.88 ± 0.19),(0.91 ± 0.20),(0.80 ± 0.15)mg respectively. HFextruded significantly more debris than PTN and K3XF at the same apical working width(F_(25)= 28.700,P_(25)<0.001;F_(30)= 19.292,P_(30)<0.001;F_(40)= 15.190,P_(40)<0.001). No significant differences were foundrelated to the apical working width(P>0.05). The instrumentation time with PTN which was(173.1 ±18.0)s showed significantly shorter time than K3XF with(220.5 ± 29.7)s and HF with(227.6 ± 22.3)sat apical working width of size 40(F = 12.369,P = 0.001). But no significant differences were found amongthree rotary systems at apical working width of size 25 and 30(P>0.05). Conclusions In the preparationof curved root canals,HF extruded significantly more debris than PTN and K3XF. PTN was faster than K3XF and HF when canals were prepared to a large apical size.
引文
[1]Seltzer S,Naidorf IJ.Flare-ups in endodontics:I.Etiological factors[J].J Endod,1985,11(11):472-478.
[2]De-Deus GA,Nogueira Leal Silva EJ,Moreira EJ,et al.Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the self-adjusting file system[J].J Endod,2014,40(4):526-529.
[3]Zhao D,Shen Y,Peng B,et al.Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM,Twisted Files,and K3instruments[J].J Endod,2013,39(3):385-388.
[4]Shen Y,Riyahi AM,Campbell L,et al.Effect of a combination of torsional and cyclic fatigue preloading on the fracture behavior of K3 and K3XF instruments[J].J Endod,2015,41(4):526-530.
[5]Saber SE,Nagy MM,Sch?fer E.Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of Pro Taper Next,i Ra Ceand Hyflex CM rotary Ni Ti files in severely curved root canals[J].Int Endod J,2015,48(2):131-136.
[6]范兵,边专,樊明文.牙体牙髓临床治疗Ⅱ.根管预备的工作长度、宽度和锥度[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2006,41(3):184-187.
[7]Schneider SW.A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals[J].Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol,1971,32(2):271-275.
[8]Myers GL,Montgomery S.A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques[J].J Endod,1991,17(6):275-279.
[9]Ko?ak S,Ko?ak MM,Sa?lam BC,et al.Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file,reciprocating single-file,and 2rotary instrumentation systems[J].J Endod,2013,39(10):1278-1280.
[10]Capar ID,Arslan H,Akcay M,et al.An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with Pro Taper Universal,Pro Taper Next,Twisted File Adaptive,and Hy Flex instruments[J].J Endod,2014,40(10):1638-1641.
[11]Karatas E,Ozsu D,Arslan H,et al.Comparison of the effect of nonactivated self-adjusting file system,Vibringe,Endo Vac,ultrasonic and needle irrigation on apical extrusion of debris[J].Int Endod J,2015,48(4):317-322.
[12]Elnaghy AM,Elsaka SE.Assessment of the mechanical properties of Pro Taper Next Nickel-titanium rotary files[J].J Endod,2014,40(11):1830-1834.
[13]Zhou HM,Shen Y,Zheng W,et al.Mechanical properties of controlled memory and superelastic nickel-titanium wires used in the manufacture of rotary endodontic instruments[J].J Endod,2012,38(11):1535-1540.
[14]Ko?ak MM,?i?ek E,Ko?ak S,et al.Comparison of Pro Taper Next and Hy Flex instruments on apical debris extrusion in curved canals[J].Int Endod J,2016,49(10):996-1000.
[15]Top?uo?lu HS,Zan R,Akpek F,et al.Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue,K3XF,Pro Taper Next and Reciproc instruments[J].Int Endod J,2016,49(12):1183-1187.
[16]Ko?ak MM,?i?ek E,Ko?ak S,et al.Apical extrusion of debris using Pro Taper Universal and Pro Taper Next rotary systems[J].Int Endod J,2015,48(3):283-286.
[17]Silva EJ,Teixeira JM,Kudsi N,et al.Influence of Apical Preparation Size and Working Length on Debris Extrusion[J].Braz Dent J,2016,27(1):28-31.
[2]De-Deus GA,Nogueira Leal Silva EJ,Moreira EJ,et al.Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the self-adjusting file system[J].J Endod,2014,40(4):526-529.
[3]Zhao D,Shen Y,Peng B,et al.Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM,Twisted Files,and K3instruments[J].J Endod,2013,39(3):385-388.
[4]Shen Y,Riyahi AM,Campbell L,et al.Effect of a combination of torsional and cyclic fatigue preloading on the fracture behavior of K3 and K3XF instruments[J].J Endod,2015,41(4):526-530.
[5]Saber SE,Nagy MM,Sch?fer E.Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of Pro Taper Next,i Ra Ceand Hyflex CM rotary Ni Ti files in severely curved root canals[J].Int Endod J,2015,48(2):131-136.
[6]范兵,边专,樊明文.牙体牙髓临床治疗Ⅱ.根管预备的工作长度、宽度和锥度[J].中华口腔医学杂志,2006,41(3):184-187.
[7]Schneider SW.A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals[J].Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol,1971,32(2):271-275.
[8]Myers GL,Montgomery S.A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques[J].J Endod,1991,17(6):275-279.
[9]Ko?ak S,Ko?ak MM,Sa?lam BC,et al.Apical extrusion of debris using self-adjusting file,reciprocating single-file,and 2rotary instrumentation systems[J].J Endod,2013,39(10):1278-1280.
[10]Capar ID,Arslan H,Akcay M,et al.An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with Pro Taper Universal,Pro Taper Next,Twisted File Adaptive,and Hy Flex instruments[J].J Endod,2014,40(10):1638-1641.
[11]Karatas E,Ozsu D,Arslan H,et al.Comparison of the effect of nonactivated self-adjusting file system,Vibringe,Endo Vac,ultrasonic and needle irrigation on apical extrusion of debris[J].Int Endod J,2015,48(4):317-322.
[12]Elnaghy AM,Elsaka SE.Assessment of the mechanical properties of Pro Taper Next Nickel-titanium rotary files[J].J Endod,2014,40(11):1830-1834.
[13]Zhou HM,Shen Y,Zheng W,et al.Mechanical properties of controlled memory and superelastic nickel-titanium wires used in the manufacture of rotary endodontic instruments[J].J Endod,2012,38(11):1535-1540.
[14]Ko?ak MM,?i?ek E,Ko?ak S,et al.Comparison of Pro Taper Next and Hy Flex instruments on apical debris extrusion in curved canals[J].Int Endod J,2016,49(10):996-1000.
[15]Top?uo?lu HS,Zan R,Akpek F,et al.Apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using Vortex Blue,K3XF,Pro Taper Next and Reciproc instruments[J].Int Endod J,2016,49(12):1183-1187.
[16]Ko?ak MM,?i?ek E,Ko?ak S,et al.Apical extrusion of debris using Pro Taper Universal and Pro Taper Next rotary systems[J].Int Endod J,2015,48(3):283-286.
[17]Silva EJ,Teixeira JM,Kudsi N,et al.Influence of Apical Preparation Size and Working Length on Debris Extrusion[J].Braz Dent J,2016,27(1):28-31.