本文選題：單尖法 + 冷側(cè)壓充填法��； 參考：《上海交通大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文

【摘要】：目的：評價(jià)不同根管充填方法(單尖法、熱牙膠充填法和冷側(cè)壓充填法)對牙根抗折性的影響。 方法：60顆新鮮拔除的單根管下頜前磨牙截冠使其全長為12mm。測量每個(gè)牙根的頰舌徑和近遠(yuǎn)中徑，將其隨機(jī)分為5組（每組12個(gè)樣本）。組間的頰舌徑和近遠(yuǎn)中徑無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異。第組不預(yù)備和充填，設(shè)為對照組。其余牙根使用化學(xué)與機(jī)械預(yù)備結(jié)合，應(yīng)用ProTaper旋轉(zhuǎn)鎳鈦系統(tǒng)預(yù)備到F3至工作長度。第二組不充填。第三、四、五組分別用冷側(cè)壓、單尖法、熱垂直加壓結(jié)合AH-plus糊劑進(jìn)行充填。所有牙根都垂直包埋于自凝塑料塊中，并暴露出冠部7mm。接著在萬能試驗(yàn)機(jī)下加載垂直向力（1mm/min）。記錄根折時(shí)的壓力（N），，應(yīng)用SAS9.0對數(shù)據(jù)進(jìn)行Kruskal Wallis檢驗(yàn)和Nemenyi檢驗(yàn)。 結(jié)果：根管預(yù)備不充填組與對照組之間有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異（p0.05)；根管預(yù)備充填的各組與對照組之間沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異（p0.05）。不同根管充填各組之間沒有統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)差異(p0.05)。 結(jié)論:根管預(yù)備明顯削弱牙根的抗折性，但可以為根管充填所補(bǔ)償；而不同根管充填方法對牙根抗折性的影響沒有顯著區(qū)別。
[Abstract]:Objective: to evaluate the effect of different root canal filling methods (single tip method, hot gum filling method and cold side filling method) on root fracture resistance. Methods the crown of mandibular premolars with one root canal was cut to 12 mm in length of 60 freshly extracted mandibular premolars. The buccal and lingual diameters and proximal distal diameters of each root were measured and randomly divided into 5 groups (12 samples per group). There was no significant difference in buccal and lingual diameters between the two groups. The first group was not prepared and filled, and was set up as the control group. The rest of the teeth were prepared to F 3 to working length using the ProTaper rotary nickel-titanium system using chemical and mechanical preparation. The second group was not filled. The third, fourth and fifth groups were filled with cold side pressure, single tip method, hot vertical pressure and AH-plus paste respectively. All the roots were perpendicularly embedded in the self-coagulating plastic block and the crown was exposed to 7 mm. Then a vertical force of 1 mm / min is loaded under a universal testing machine. The pressure of root fracture was recorded and the data were tested by Kruskal Wallis and Nemenyi with SAS9.0. Results: there was significant difference between the root canal preparation group and the control group (P 0.05), but there was no significant difference between the root canal preparation group and the control group (P 0.05). There was no significant difference between different root canal filling groups (P 0.05). Conclusion: root canal preparation can significantly weaken root fracture resistance, but it can be compensated by root canal filling, but different root canal filling methods have no significant difference on root fracture resistance.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：R781.05

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前3條

1 蔣玉清;黃定明;;新型樹脂根管充填材料Resilon/Epiphany的研究進(jìn)展[J];國際口腔醫(yī)學(xué)雜志;2010年03期

2 楊萍,耿發(fā)云,彭勇,羅梅芬,徐玲,周利文,舒香云;Vitapex根充糊劑的封閉性研究[J];口腔醫(yī)學(xué);2004年01期

3 張偉;熱牙膠根管充填技術(shù)研究進(jìn)展[J];牙體牙髓牙周病學(xué)雜志;2003年09期

本文編號：1774976