三种单只成形镍钛器械对模拟弯曲根管预备效果的评价

doi:10.13481/j.1671-587X.20220607

摘要/Abstract

摘要：

目的比较３种单只成形镍钛器械对模拟弯曲根管切割能力和成形能力，为其临床应用提供依据。方法选取40个单弯树脂模拟根管，随机分为Reciproc Blue组、WaveOne Gold组、M3-L组和ProTaper Gold组，每组各10个。按照使用说明书预备各组模拟根管，记录模拟根管预备时间、预备前后模拟根管的质量差、模拟根管弯曲角度差、根尖偏移量、模拟根管内外径树脂去除量和模拟根管定心比。结果 WaveOne Gold组模拟根管预备时间短于其他3组（Ｐ<0.05），ProTaper Gold组模拟根管预备时间较其他3组明显增长（Ｐ<0.05）；预备前后4组模拟根管质量差比较差异无统计学意义（Ｐ>0.05）。预备前后M3-L组模拟根管弯曲角度差小于其他3组（Ｐ<0.05）；预备后4组模拟根管根尖区（1~4 mm）外径树脂去除量大于内径（Ｐ<0.05），根中区（5~8 mm）内径树脂去除量较外径大（Ｐ<0.05）；在距离根尖孔1、3和6 mm处，ProTaper Gold组模拟根管的定心比与1的差值最大，大于其他3组（Ｐ<0.05），其他组模拟根管各个观察点处定心比与1的差值比较差异无统计学意义（Ｐ>0.05）。结论 Reciproc Blue、WaveOne Gold和M3-L３种单只成形镍钛器械均可较好地保持根管的形态，且较ProTaper Gold多只锉系统的预备效率和中心定位能力更好。国产单只镍钛器械M3-L可以更好地保持根管原有的弯曲度。

关键词: 镍钛器械, 单支锉, 切割能力, 成形能力, 热处理

Abstract:

Objective To compare the cutting abilities and shaping abilities of three kinds of single formed nickel-titanium instruments for the simulated curved root canals， and to provide the basis for their clinical applications. Methods A total of 40 single curved resin simulated root canals were selected and randomly divided into Reciproc Blue group， WaveOne Gold group， M3-L group， and ProTaper Gold group， and there were 10 single curved resin simulated root canals in each group. The simulated root canals in each group were prepared according to the user manuals， and the preparation time， difference in weights of simulated root canals before and after preparation， difference of bending angles of simulated root canals，apical deviations， removal amounts of internal and external resin， centering ratios of simulated root canals in various groups were recorded. Results The preparation time of the simulated root canals in WaveOne Gold group was shorter than those in the other three groups （P<0.05），and the preparation time of the simulated root canals in ProTaper Gold group was longer than those in the other groups（P<0.05）. There was no significant difference in wieight of the simulated root canals among four groups before and after preparation （P>0.05）.The differences of bending angles of the simulated root canals in M3-L group before and after preparation was smaller than those in the other three groups （P<0.05）.After preparation， the removal amount of internal resin of the apical zone （1－4 mm） was larger than extermal resin（P<0.05）， and the removal amount of external resin of the middle zone （5－8 mm） was larger than internal resin（P<0.05）； at the positions 1， 3 and 6 mm from the apical foramen， the differences between the centering ratios of the simulated root canal in ProTaper Gold group and 1 was the largest， which was larger than those in the other three groups （P<0.05），and the differences between the centering ratio of the simulated root canals and 1 at each observation point in the other groups were not statistically significant （P>0.05）. Conclusion Reciproc Blue， WaveOne Gold and M3-L single formed nickel-titanium instruments can keep the shape of root canals better， and have better preparation efficiencies and center positioning ability than the ProTaper Gold multi-file system. Domestic single nickel-titanium instrument M3-L can better maintain the original curvature of the root canals.

Key words: Nickel-titanium instrument, Single file, Cutting ability, Forming ability, Heat treatment

中图分类号:

R781.05

王颖艺,王成坤,马昂,焦珊. 三种单只成形镍钛器械对模拟弯曲根管预备效果的评价[J]. 吉林大学学报(医学版), 2022, 48(6): 1422-1428.

Yingyi WANG,Chengkun WANG,Ang MA,Shan JIAO. Evaluation of preparation effect of three kinds of single formed nickel-titanium instruments on simulated curved root canals[J]. Journal of Jilin University(Medicine Edition), 2022, 48(6): 1422-1428.

图/表 5

表１

表２

图1

表3

表4

参考文献 21

1	WIGSTEN E， KVIST T， JONASSON P， et al. Comparing quality of life of patients undergoing root canal treatment or tooth extraction［J］. J Endod， 2020， 46（1）： 19-28.
2	GERGI R， ARBAB-CHIRANI R， OSTA N， et al. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium instruments［J］. J Endod， 2014， 40（8）： 1223-1227.
3	SCHNEIDER S W. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals［J］. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol， 1971， 32（2）： 271-275.
4	SOUSA-NETO M D， SILVA-SOUSA Y C， MAZZI-CHAVES J F， et al. Root canal preparation using micro-computed tomography analysis： a literature review［J］. Braz Oral Res， 2018， 32（）： e66.
5	BÜRKLEIN S， BENTEN S， SCHÄFER E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth［J］. Int Endod J， 2013， 46（6）： 590-597.
6	晏瑾，彭彬. WaveOne Gold、Reciproc Blue和M3-L在树脂模拟根管中的成形能力比较［J］. 临床口腔医学杂志， 2021， 37（2）： 71-74.
7	AGGARWAL A， NAWAL R R， YADAV S， et al. Comparative evaluation of dentinal microcrack formation before and after root canal preparation using rotary， reciprocating， and adaptive instruments at different working lengths-A micro-computed tomographic study［J］. J Endod， 2021， 47（8）： 1314-1320.
8	CLAUDER T， BAUMANN M A. ProTaper NT system［J］. Dent Clin N Am， 2004， 48（1）： 87-111.
9	DUQUE J A， VIVAN R R， CAVENAGO B C， et al. Influence of NiTi alloy on the root canal shaping capabilities of the ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold rotary instrument systems［J］. J Appl Oral Sci， 2017， 25（1）： 27-33.
10	GAGLIARDI J， VERSIANI M A， DE SOUSA-NETO M D， et al. Evaluation of the shaping characteristics of ProTaper gold， ProTaper NEXT， and ProTaper universal in curved canals［J］. J Endod， 2015， 41（10）： 1718-1724.
11	CAMPOS A E A， DE JESUS SOARES A， SILVA LIMOEIRO A GDA， et al. Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R， Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments［J］.Res Soc Dev，2021，10（3）： e1710313028.
12	PLOTINO G， GIANSIRACUSA RUBINI A， GRANDE N M， et al. Cutting efficiency of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments［J］. J Endod， 2014， 40（8）： 1228-1230.
13	ZUPANC J， VAHDAT-PAJOUH N， SCHÄFER E. New thermomechanically treated NiTi alloys-a review［J］. Int Endod J， 2018， 51（10）： 1088-1103.
14	WU M K， FAN B， WESSELINK P R. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part Ⅰ：Effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings［J］. J Endod， 2000， 26（4）： 210-216.
15	STAVILECI M， HOXHA V， GÖRDUYSUS Ö，et al. Effects of preparation techniques on root canal shaping assessed by micro-computed tomography［J］. Med Sci Monit Basic Res， 2013， 19： 163-168.
16	VIANA A C D， CHAVES CRAVEIRO DE MELO M， GUIOMAR DE AZEVEDO BAHIA M， et al. Relationship between flexibility and physical， chemical， and geometric characteristics of rotary nickel-titanium instruments［J］. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod， 2010， 110（4）： 527-533.
17	GU Y， KUM K Y， PERINPANAYAGAM H， et al. Various heat-treated nickel-titanium rotary instruments evaluated in S-shaped simulated resin canals［J］. J Dent Sci， 2017， 12（1）： 14-20.
18	HAMID H R， GLUSKIN A H， PETERS O A， et al. Rotary versus reciprocation root canal preparation： initial clinical quality assessment in a novice clinician cohort［J］. J Endod， 2018， 44（8）： 1257-1262.
19	HÜLSMANN M， PETERS O A， DUMMER P M H. Mechanical preparation of root canals： shaping goals， techniques and means［J］.Endod Top，2005，10（1）： 30-76.
20	BÜRKLEIN S， SCHÄFER E. Critical evaluation of root canal transportation by instrumentation［J］. Endod Top， 2013， 29（1）： 110-124.
21	SHEN Y， CHEUNG G S P. Methods and models to study nickel-titanium instruments［J］. Endod Top， 2013， 29（1）： 18-41.

Group	Preparation time (t/s)	Difference in weight (m/g)	Difference of bending angles (θ/°)	Apical deviation（l/mm）
Reciproc Blue	42.00±0.95	0.034±0.020	1.581±0.156	0.035±0.014
WaveOne Gold	38.75±0.32^*#	0.037±0.015	1.739±0.285	0.028±0.011
M3-L	40.03±0.48	0.030±0.017	1.041±0.254^*△	0.029±0.012
ProTaper Gold	58.88±1.13^*△#	0.036±0.016	1.419±0.274^#	0.030±0.007
F	2 275.243	1.116	6.944	0.772
P	<0.001	0.356	0.001	0.517

Group	Removal amount of internal resin
Group	1	2	3	4	5
Reciproc Blue	0.096±0.071	0.065±0.013	0.058±0.015	0.079±0.016	0.162±0.031
WaveOne Gold	0.099±0.080	0.071±0.011	0.068±0.018	0.091±0.031	0.163±0.040
M3-L	0.103±0.052^*	0.072±0.012	0.057±0.011	0.087±0.024	0.138±0.028
ProTaper Gold	0.096±0.080^#	0.138±0.011^*△#	0.079±0.011^*#	0.153±0.038^*△#	0.210±0.039^*△#
Group	Removal amount of internal resin
Group	6	7	8	9	10
Reciproc Blue	0.178±0.035	0.195±0.025	0.198±0.021	0.206±0.014	0.198±0.037
WaveOne Gold	0.163±0.031	0.180±0.031	0.193±0.029	0.204±0.023	0.213±0.048
M3-L	0.168±0.025	0.202±0.025	0.209±0.023	0.213±0.011	0.225±0.039
ProTaper Gold	0.200±0.027^△#	0.200±0.027	0.196±0.038	0.202±0.030	0.212±0.025

Group
Group	1	2	3	4	5
Reciproc Blue	0.094±0.070	0.101±0.008	0.103±0.006	0.126±0.007	0.147±0.009
WaveOne Gold	0.098±0.084	0.103±0.010	0.100±0.006	0.121±0.010	0.143±0.011
M3-L	0.103±0.008	0.106±0.010	0.122±0.006^*△	0.129±0.008	0.128±0.009^*△
ProTaper Gold	0.071±0.005^*△#	0.143±0.012^*△#	0.108±0.009^#	0.176±0.012^*△#	0.173±0.008^*△#
Group	Removal amount of external resin
Group	6	7	8	9	10
Reciproc Blue	0.164±0.008	0.194±0.008	0.197±0.008	0.197±0.008	0.206±0.008
WaveOne Gold	0.160±0.008	0.198±0.007	0.197±0.007	0.193±0.012	0.205±0.008
M3-L	0.166±0.006	0.200±0.006	0.200±0.005	0.201±0.007	0.206±0.012
ProTaper Gold	0.163±0.008	0.198±0.009	0.199±0.005	0.201±0.008	0.208±0.008

Group	Centering ratio
Group	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
Reciproc Blue	0.707	0.648	0.560	0.629	1.110	1.090	1.010	1.010	1.050	0.964
WaveOne Gold	0.713	0.698	0.679^*	0.761	1.141	1.017	0.918	0.977	1.057	1.043
M3-L	0.710	0.679	0.629	0.672	1.079	1.016	1.011	1.045	1.062	1.095
ProTaper Gold	0.578^*△#	0.607	0.504^△#	0.704	1.103	1.232^△#	1.011	0.981	1.006	1.017

[1]	吴庆翠,王颖艺,马昂,李怡然,焦珊,王成坤,姜秋. 5种热处理型镍钛器械的抗弯曲疲劳性能[J]. 吉林大学学报(医学版), 2021, 47(4): 984-989.
[2]	王静, 王成坤, 唐晓丽, 孙颖, 周元元, 焦珊. 3种往复旋转单支镍钛器械预备模拟弯曲根管的效果比较[J]. 吉林大学学报(医学版), 2017, 43(01): 62-65.
[3]	王成坤 \|焦珊\|郭秦榕. 非国际化标准机用镍钛根管预备器械研究进展[J]. J4, 2012, 38(3): 607-610.