Root-canal preparation with FlexMaster: canal shapes analysed by micro-computed tomography.
Root-canal preparation with FlexMaster: canal shapes analysed by micro-computed tomography.
复制标题
使用 FlexMaster 进行根管预备：通过微型计算机断层扫描分析根管形状。
DOI：
10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00723.x
复制
发表时间：
2003
影响因子：
5
通讯作者：
O. Peters
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Hübscher;F. Barbakow;O. Peters
目的
评估 FlexMaster 镍钛器械在体外塑造上颌磨牙根管的相对性能。
方法论
在根管成形之前和之后，使用 FlexMaster 扫描拔除的人类上颌磨牙，采用分辨率为 36 微米的微型计算机断层扫描 (microCT)。对根管进行三维重建并评估其体积、表面积、“厚度”（直径）、根管运输和准备的表面。根据中位根管体积，将根管分为“宽”组和“缩窄”组。使用方差分析和 Scheffé 事后检验，对近颊侧 (mb)、远颊侧 (db) 和腭侧 (p) 以及“宽”和“缩”根管进行了比较。
结果
mb、db 和 p 根管的体积和表面积显着增加，且相似，并且未发现明显的准备错误。 mb、db 和 p 根管的平均根管直径（从冠状面到根尖 5 毫米）分别从 0.45 毫米增加到 0.65 毫米，从 0.41 毫米增加到 0.56 毫米，从 0.79 毫米增加到 0.85 毫米。根尖管运输范围为 0.01 至 0.29 mm，且与根管类型无关； “宽”运河的未准备表面比例明显高于“狭窄”运河（P < 0.05）。
结论
FlexMaster 器械可将上颌磨牙的弯曲且狭窄的根管成形为尺寸 40 和 45，且没有明显的成形误差。根管解剖结构对准备工作影响不大，表明 FlexMaster 器械能够塑造“狭窄”根管和“宽”根管。
AIM
To evaluate the relative performance of FlexMaster nickel-titanium instruments shaping maxillary molar root canals in vitro.
METHODOLOGY
Extracted human maxillary molars were scanned, before and after root-canal shaping, with FlexMaster, employing micro-computed tomography (microCT) at a resolution of 36 microm. Canals were three-dimensionally reconstructed and evaluated for volume, surface area, 'thickness' (diameter), canal transportation and prepared surface. Based on median canal volume, the canals were divided into 'wide' and 'constricted' groups. Comparisons were made between mesiobuccal (mb), distobuccal (db) and palatal (p), as well as 'wide' and 'constricted' canals, using anova and Scheffé post-hoc tests.
RESULTS
Volume and surface area increased significantly and similarly in mb, db and p canals, and no gross preparation errors were found. Mean root-canal diameters, 5 mm coronal to the apex, increased from 0.45 to 0.65 mm, from 0.41 to 0.56 mm and from 0.79 to 0.85 mm for mb, db and p canals, respectively. Apical canal transportation ranged from 0.01 to 0.29 mm and was independent of canal type; 'wide' canals had a significantly higher (P < 0.05) proportion of unprepared surfaces than 'constricted' canals had.
CONCLUSIONS
FlexMaster instruments shaped curved and narrow root canals in maxillary molars to sizes 40 and 45 without significant shaping errors. Canal anatomy had an insignificant impact on preparation, indicating that FlexMaster instruments were able to shape 'constricted' canals as well as 'wide' ones.