论文部分内容阅读
目的:比较两种根管长度测量仪与数字化X线测量根管工作长度的准确性。方法:选取2013年3月至2015年3月于我院治疗的75例患者,共180根管分成3组,分别为X线组、PropexⅡ组及Raypex 5组,必兰麻局麻下,常规去腐,开髓,揭髓顶,拔髓,并建立起直线入路。分别使用X线、PropexⅡ、Raypex 5对工作长度进行确定,工作长度准确性依据对应主尖(Pro Taper F3)的充填质量完成评估。X线片根尖同主尖距离使用Vix Win Pro软件进行计算和统计分析。结果:X线组、PropexⅡ组及Raypex 5组的根管充填成功率为76.7%、81.7%和78.3%,组间比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。各组主尖同X线片根尖距离的比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。同类牙齿测量值的各组间对比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05);同组不同类牙齿的测量值对比,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:Raypex 5和PropexⅡ型根管长度测量仪的临床效果与传统X线相似,且可避免不必要的电离辐射。
OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of two root canal length measuring instruments and digital X-ray to measure the working length of root canal. Methods: From March 2013 to March 2015 in our hospital for treatment of 75 patients, a total of 180 tubes were divided into three groups, respectively, X-ray group, Propex Ⅱ group and Raypex 5 group, To rot, open pulp, expose the top of the pulp, pulp, and establish a straight line approach. The working lengths were determined using X-ray, Propex II and Raypex 5, respectively, and the accuracy of the working length was evaluated according to the fill quality of the corresponding Pro Taper F3. X-ray tip with the main tip distance using Vix Win Pro software for calculation and statistical analysis. Results: The success rates of root canal filling in X-ray group, PropexⅡgroup and Raypex 5 group were 76.7%, 81.7% and 78.3%, respectively. There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference in the apical distance between the main peak and the radiographs of each group (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the groups of the same tooth measurements (P> 0.05). There was no significant difference between the two groups (P> 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The clinical effects of Raypex 5 and Propex II root canal length gauges are similar to conventional X-rays and avoid unnecessary ionizing radiation.