根管预备后超声冲洗的临床研究  

Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation after root canal preparation

作　　者：何秉贞[1] 张成飞[1] 高娟[1] 林琼光[1] 

机构地区：[1]北京大学口腔医学院口腔医院特诊科,100081

出　　处：《现代口腔医学杂志》2006年第3期231-233,共3页Journal of Modern Stomatology

摘　　要：目的对不同方法根管预备后超声冲洗进行临床评估。方法将121例患者144颗患牙,随机分成四组:手用不锈钢K锉组;手用不锈钢K锉+超声冲洗组;机用不锈钢K锉组;机用不锈钢K锉+超声冲洗组。手用不锈钢K锉采用逐步深入法预备根管,机用不锈钢K锉采用逐步后退法预备根管。比较四组根管预备后疼痛发生情况率、根管充填质量、根尖偏移和侧枝根管充填情况,以及根管充填一年疗效观察。结果各组根管预备后疼痛无显著性差异(P>0.05)。超声组侧枝根管充填率高于单纯手用和机用组。术后一年复查98颗,相应各组无显著性差异(P>0.05)。结论根管预备后超声冲洗,对降低术后疼痛及提高临床治疗有效率无明显效果;但可以提高侧枝根管充填率。Objective To clinically evaluate the efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation after different canal preparations. Methods One hundred and forty- four teeth collected from 121 patients were randomly divided into 4 groups. Group1 ： stainless- steel K file hand instrument; Group 2： stainless - steel K file hand instrument plus ultrasonic irrigation; Group3： stainless-steel K fde M4 handpiece; Group4： stainless-steel K file M4 handpiece plus ultrasonic irrigation. Two techniques of root canal preparation were used： step- down technique using hand instrumentation; and step- back technique using M4 handpiece. Postoperative pain, root canal fillings, and one- year successful rates were evaluate. Remits The postoperative pain was not significantly different among four groups （ P 〉0.05）. The number of lateral canal obturation was higher in the group of ultraaonic irrigation than both groups of only hand inatrumentation and M4 handpiece. The one- year auccessful rates were not significantly different among groups （ P 〉 0.05 ）. Concluslon The ultraaonic irrigation after root canal preparation was not more efficient in reducing postoperative pain or increasing one- year successful rates; but it could increase the number of lateral canal obturation.

关 键 词：超声冲洗 根管预备 逐步深入 逐步后退 

分 类 号：R781.05[医药卫生—口腔医学]