标题：不同机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中的应用

      作者：郭莉莉，魏士刚，刘纪雷    河南中医药大学第一附属医院口腔科，河南 郑州 450000

      卷次： 2024年35卷8期

      【摘要】 目的 比较不同机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中的临床应用效果。方法 回顾性分析2021年1月至2021年6月于河南中医药大学第一附属医院口腔科行磨牙根管治疗的72例患者的临床资料，根据采用机用镍钛器械的不同分为A组、B组和C组各24例。所有患者均接受后牙根管治疗，A组采用Wave One Gold机用镍钛器械治疗，B组采用Protaper Gold机用镍钛器械治疗，C组采用Protaper Universal机用镍钛器械治疗。比较三组每个根管预备时间、根管充填质量、临床疗效、牙根微裂情况及术后疼痛情况。结果 A组患者的每个根管预备时间为(29.35±4.20) s，明显短于B组的(87.42±8.56) s和C组的(88.23±8.79) s，差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)，但B组、C组患者的每个根管预备时间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)；A组、B组、C组患者的根管充填质量合格率分别为92.13%、96.47%、94.81%，治疗的总有效率分别为 95.83%、91.67%、95.83%，牙根微裂发生率分别为4.17%、4.17%、8.33%，差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)；术后24 h内，三组患者的术后疼痛分级比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论 Wave One Gold、Protaper Universal、Protaper Gold机用镍钛器械在后牙根管治疗中疗效确切，相比于Wave One Gold，Protaper Universal、Protaper Gold的预备时间较长，且三者均不会明显增加牙根微裂发生率与术后疼痛程度。
      【关键词】 镍钛器械；根管预备；临床疗效；牙根微裂；疼痛
      【中图分类号】 R782.1 【文献标识码】 A 【文章编号】 1003—6350（2024）08—1124—04

Application of different nickel-titanium instruments in posterior root canal therapy.
GUO Li-li, WEI Shi-gang,LIU Ji-lei. Department of Stomatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Traditional Chinese Medicine,Zhengzhou 450000, Henan, CHINA
【Abstract】 Objective To compare the clinical effects of different nickel-titanium instruments in posterior rootcanal treatment. Methods The clinical data of 72 patients who underwent molar root canal treatment in the Departmentof Stomatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University of Chinese Medicine from January 2021 to June 2021were retrospectively analyzed. The patients were divided into group A, B, and C according to different mechanical nick-el-titanium instruments, with 24 cases in each group. All patients received posterior root canal treatment. Group A wastreated with a Wave One Gold machine with a nickel-titanium instrument, group B with a Protaper Gold machine with anickel-titanium instrument, and group C with a Protaper Universal machine with a nickel-titanium instrument. The prepa-ration time of each root canal, the quality of root canal filling, the clinical effect, the situation of root cracks, and the post-operative pain were compared among the three groups. Results The preparation time of each root canal in group A was(29.35±4.20) s, which was significantly shorter than (87.42±8.56) s in group B and (88.23±8.79) s in group C (P<0.05).There was no significant difference in the preparation time of each root canal between groups B and C (P>0.05). Thequalified rates of root canal filling in group A, group B, and group C were 92.13%, 96.47%, and 94.81%, the total effec-tive rates were 95.83%, 91.67% and 95.83%, and the incidence of root microcracks were 4.17%, 4.17%, and 8.33%, re-spectively, with no statistically significant differences among the three groups (P>0.05). Within 24 h after surgery, therewas no difference in postoperative pain grade among the three groups (P>0.05). Conclusion Nickel-titanium instru-ments used in Wave One Gold, Protaper Universal, and Protaper Gold machines are effective in posterior root canal treat-ment. Compared with Wave One Gold, the preparation time of Protaper Universal and Protaper Gold is longer, and thethree all do not significantly increase the incidence of root microcracks and the degree of postoperative pain.
      【Key words】 Nickel-titanium instruments; Root canal preparation; Clinical effect; Root microcracks; Pain