两种根管糊剂用于热牙胶根管充填的疗效观察  

Comparison of the clinical effects between two different root canal sealants applied in thermal gutta-percha root canal therapy

作　　者：梁建平[1] 林志立[1] 周彦夫[1] 黄磊[1] 

机构地区：[1]广州市第一人民医院口腔科,广东广州510180

出　　处：《广东牙病防治》2013年第6期311-313,共3页Journal of Dental Prevention and Treatment

摘　　要：目的探讨两种根管糊剂在热牙胶根管充填中的临床应用效果。方法 145颗热牙胶根管充填治疗的单根管患牙,随机分为2组,Corstimol组72颗患牙根管充填时用Corstimol糊剂,AH-plus组73颗患牙根管充填时用AH-Plus糊剂,2年后回访观察2组的成功率,并行统计学分析。结果 2年后回访91颗患牙,回访率62.8%。两组根管糊剂充填2年后,Corstimol组回访42颗,成功34颗,成功率81.0%;AH-plus组回访49颗,成功45颗,成功率91.8%,比较临床效果差异有统计学意义(χ2=5.7857,P<0.05)。结论 AH-Plus糊剂用于热牙胶根管充填的疗效优于Corstimol糊剂。Objective To compare the clinical effects of two different root canal sealants applied in thermal gutta-per- cha root canal therapy. Methods One hundred and forty-five single-rooted teeth in need of root canal treatment were se- lected, and divided into two groups at random. Groul） A, Corstimol （Acteon） was applied in root eaual filling as root ca- nal sealant in 72 teeth. Group B, All-Plus （ Dentsply ） was applied in root canal filling as root canal sealant in 73 teeth. The clinical effects were observed after 2 years. Results Ninety treated teeth（62.75% ） were reviewed after 2 years. Group A, 34 teetll clinical succeeded, the percentage was 81%. Group B, 45 teeth clinical succeeded, the percentage was 91.8%. The dift〉renee of clinical effects between two root canal sealants was statistically significant （P 〈 0.05 ）. Conclusion AH-Plus showed better clinical eftect in the long term prognosis of thermal gutta-percha root canal therapy.

关 键 词：根管糊剂 热牙胶 根管充填 

分 类 号：R781.5[医药卫生—口腔医学]