【摘要】 目的:比较TF Adaptive(TFA)、Reciproc(R)和Pro Taper Next(PTN) 3种旋转镍钛系统的根管偏移和中心定位能力。方法:选择30个因正畸拔除的单根管前磨牙,随机分为3组(n=10),分别用TFA、R、PTN按厂家推荐方法进行根管预备。根管预备前后用Micro-CT分别进行扫描,评价器械预备后的根管偏移情况和中心定位能力,并进行统计学分析。结果:在根上及根中1/3处,3组器械根管预备后根管偏移量及中心定位能力均无统计学差异(P>0. 05);在根尖1/3处,TFA组根管偏移量最小,中心定位能力最优,PTN组次之,R组根管偏移最大,中心等位能力最差(P <0. 05)。结论:与Reciproc和Pro TaperNext 2种镍钛器械相比,TF Adaptive预备根管后,根管偏移量少,中心定位能力好,能较好地维持根管的原始走向。更多还原

【Abstract】 Objective: To compare root canal transportation and centering ability of TF Adaptive( TFA),Reciproc( R) and Pro Taper Next( PTN). Methods: 30 single rooted premolars extracted from orthodontic treatment were randomly divided into 3 groups( n = 10)and prepare by TFA,R and PTN Respectively. The teeth were scanned by Micro-CT before and after instrumentation. The images were reconstructed and exported to Adobe Photo-shop software for analysis. Canal transportation and centering change were determined accordingly. SPSS19. 0 software was used to analyze the data. Results: There was no statistical difference in canal transportation and centering ability for coronal and middle root canal among the 3 groups( P > 0. 05); for root apical,the canal transportation in group TFA was the smallest,followed by PTN group,that of group R was the largest( between each 2 groups,P < 0. 05),the centering ability of TFA group was the best,followed PTN group,that of group R was the last( between each 2 groups,P < 0. 05). Conclusion:TFA Ni-Ti instrument is superior to Reciproc and Pro Taper Next for the maintenance of the original orientation of the root canal in root canal preparation.更多还原