华西口腔医学杂志 ›› 2020, Vol. 38 ›› Issue (2): 160-165.doi: 10.7518/hxkq.2020.02.009

• 临床研究 • 上一篇    下一篇

比较3种微套管装置提取分离器械效果的体外实验研究

乐鑫, 申静, 张海峰()   

  1. 天津市口腔医院(南开大学附属口腔医院)国际诊疗中心,天津 300041
  • 收稿日期:2019-05-16 修回日期:2020-01-08 出版日期:2020-04-01 发布日期:2020-04-15
  • 通讯作者: 张海峰 E-mail:haifengzhang@126.com
  • 作者简介:乐鑫,主治医师,硕士,E-mail:endoyue@stomatology.com.cn

Comparative study on three kinds of microtube extraction devices in vitro

Yue Xin, Shen Jing, Zhang Haifeng()   

  1. International Medical Department, Tianjin Stomatological Hospital & Hospital of Stomatology, Nankai University, Tianjin 300041, China
  • Received:2019-05-16 Revised:2020-01-08 Online:2020-04-01 Published:2020-04-15
  • Contact: Haifeng Zhang E-mail:haifengzhang@126.com

摘要:

目的 研究IRS和根管治疗并发症微处理(MR&R)系统分离器械提取装置以及改良微套管的MR&R系统,对不同暴露长度的分离器械模型的提取效果。方法 通过建立断面平台模型,制作不锈钢器械实验组和镍钛器械实验组共23种分离器械模型,使用IRS和MR&R系统及改良微套管的MR&R系统分别提取这些分离器械,每种器械提取3次,使用卡方检验分析其提取效果的差异。结果 当分离器械暴露为0.50 mm时,使用改良微套管的MR&R系统提取效果显著优于IRS及MR&R系统(P<0.001);当分离器械暴露为1.00 mm时,提取镍钛分离器械时,2种MR&R系统提取效果显著优于IRS系统(P<0.01);当分离器械暴露为1.50 mm以上时,三者无差异。结论 对暴露长度较短的分离器械,MR&R系统提取效果好,改良微套管的MR&R系统提取分离器械的成功率更高。

关键词: 器械分离, 微套管, IRS, 根管治疗并发症微处理系统

Abstract:

Objective This study aims to compare the efficiency of three kinds of microtube extraction devices, namely, instrument removal system (IRS), micro-retrieve and repair (MR&R) system, and MR&R system using modified microtube in removing separated instruments with different exposure lengths. Methods After a cross-section platform model was established, the IRS, MR&R, and MR&R modified microtube system with sidewall window reduced to 0.20 mm were used to retrieve various separated instrument models, and the differences in extraction effects were statistically analyzed by Chi-square test. The separated instrument models were divided into two groups: stainless steel and nickel-titanium instrument groups. In total, 23 instruments were tested for three times each. Results When the exposed length of separated instrument was 0.50 mm, the removal efficiency of the modified MR&R system group was significantly higher than those of the IRS and MR&R system groups (P<0.001). When the broken end of the fracture instrument was up to 1.00 mm, the success rates of the MR&R system and modified MR&R groups were significantly higher than that of the IRS group (P<0.01). No difference was observed among these three devices when the exposure length of separated instruments was 1.50 mm or higher. Conclusion The MR&R and modified MR&R systems have good removal effect when the exposed length of separated instrument is small.

Key words: instrument separation, microtube, instrument removal system, micro-retrieve and repair system

中图分类号: