检索规则说明:AND代表“并且”;OR代表“或者”;NOT代表“不包含”;(注意必须大写,运算符两边需空一格)
检 索 范 例 :范例一: (K=图书馆学 OR K=情报学) AND A=范并思 范例二:J=计算机应用与软件 AND (U=C++ OR U=Basic) NOT M=Visual
机构地区:[1]广东省中医院珠海医院口腔科,广东珠海519015
出 处:《中国医药科学》2011年第16期70-71,共2页China Medicine And Pharmacy
摘 要:目的比较两种根管预备方法对后继根充的牙胶副尖添加情况。方法牙髓炎、根尖周炎患者421个根管分为两组,A组201个根管用G型钻联合机用Protaper镍钛器械逐步深入法备根再做根充;B组220个根管用手用MaNi锉逐步后退法备根后再做根充。比较两组患者根充时牙胶副尖的添加情况。结果 A组201个根管的牙胶副尖共146根,而B组220个根管的牙胶副尖共685根,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。结论 G型钻联合Protaper镍钛器械根备后根管的根充比手用MaNi锉更方便、快捷。Objective To compare the state of adding auxiliary gutta-percha in the root canals fillings after 2 different methods in the preparation of root canals. Methods 421 root canals in patients with pulptis or periapical periodontitis were divided into two groups . Group A:201 root canals were prepared with Gates-Glidden bur and Protaper nickel-titanium files.The preparing method is step-down technique. And then root canals filling. Group B:220 root canals were prepared with stainless steel MaNi files. The preparing method is step-back technique. And then also root canals filling.Then compare the adding situation of auxiliary gutta-percha in 2 groups. Results Group A:45 auxiliary gutta-percha were added in all 201 root canals. Group B:685 auxiliary gutta-percha in all 220 root canals. There's evident disparity between the 2 groups(P 0.05) . Conclusion The root canals filling after root canals preparation with Gate-Glidden bur and Protaper nickel-titanium files are more convinent than MaNi files
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在载入数据...
正在链接到云南高校图书馆文献保障联盟下载...
云南高校图书馆联盟文献共享服务平台 版权所有©
您的IP:216.73.216.229