论文部分内容阅读
目的:评价不同糊剂在根管治疗中的临床疗效。方法:2006年6月～2009年12月就诊的309例患者327颗患牙,随机分为A组(METAPEX组)103例110个牙齿,B组(AH-Plus组)103例108个牙齿及C组(氧化锌丁香油糊剂组,ZOE)103例109个牙齿。分别使用三种根充糊剂加牙胶尖进行根管充填,通过观察比较各组术后一周内发生疼痛等急症反应的情况和一年的总有效率。结果:根管充填1周内三组患牙全部复查,A、B、C组术后急症发生率分别为9.1%、10.2%、23.9%,三组比较差异有统计学意义(P<0.05)。C组与B组或与A组比较,差异均有统计学意义(P<0.05);A组与B组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。根管充填1年后三组患牙全部复查,A、B、C组术后1年成功率分别为91.8%、93.5%、90.8%,差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。X线片检查示,A组病例中,部分糊剂出现吸收,根尖骨组织透射影明显修复。B组中见侧支根管存在阻射影者6例。结论:METAPEX糊剂和AH-Hus糊剂根充效果良好且无明显差别。
Objective: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of different pastes in root canal therapy. METHODS: A total of 327 teeth from 309 patients admitted from June 2006 to December 2009 were randomly divided into 103 teeth (110 teeth) in group A (METAPEX group), 103 teeth (103 teeth) in group B (AH-Plus group) Group C (zinc oxide clove oil paste group, ZOE) 103 cases of 109 teeth. Three types of root canal paste and gutta-percha root were used for root canal filling. The incidence of acute and acute pain in one week after operation and the total effective rate in one year were observed and compared. Results: The incidences of postoperative emergencies in group A, B and C were 9.1%, 10.2% and 23.9%, respectively. There was significant difference between the three groups (P <0.05) . The difference between group C and group B or group A was statistically significant (P <0.05). There was no significant difference between group A and group B (P> 0.05). After 1 year of root canal filling, all the three groups of teeth were reviewed. The success rates of 1 year after operation in group A, B and C were 91.8%, 93.5% and 90.8% respectively. There was no significant difference (P> 0.05). X-ray examination showed that A group of cases, some of the paste appears absorbed, root tip bone tissue transmission shadow significantly repair. B group, see the lateral branchar canopus shadow presence in 6 cases. Conclusion: METAPEX paste and AH-Hus paste root filling effect is good and no significant difference.