Objective: To compare ProTaper Universal(PU),ProTaper Next(PN),WaveOne(WO) and M3 in the preparation of simulated curved canals. Methods: 40 simulated root canals were made from translucent resin and randomly divided into 4 groups(n = 10),the canals were prepared by PU,PN,WO and M3 respectively. The efficacy of canal preparation was analyzed. The pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were recorded and the assessment of the canal shape was completed with Photoshop cs6 and Image Pro Plus6. 0. The apical transportation indexes and the amounts of apically extruded debris were measured. Results: WO was the most time-saving in mean working time(P ＜ 0. 05). PN and M3 took less time than PU in shaping the canals at the most levels(P ＜ 0. 05; PN vs M3,P＞ 0. 05). The amounts of apically extruded debris by PN was less than by PU,WO and M3(P ＜ 0. 05). The apical transportation by PN and M3 was less than that by PU and WO(P ＜ 0. 05). Conclusion: WaveOne is the most time-saving in shaping root canals. ProTaper Next and M3 are more effective and time-saving than ProTaper Universal in shaping root canals. ProTaper Next and M3 are comparable for optimally enlarge root canal.%目的: 利用树脂模拟根管比较ProTaper Universal、ProTaper Next、WaveOne与M3预备根管的成形效果.方法: 选取透明树脂根管40个,随机分为4组(n = 4).分别用ProTaper Universal(PU组) 、ProTaper Next(PN组) 、WaveOne(WO组) 和M3(M3组) 进行根管预备.记录根管预备时间、预备前后的形态图像.使用图像处理、分析软件测量各观测点树脂切割量.计算根管偏移程度以及根尖孔碎屑溢出量.结果: WO组根管预备时间最短(P ＜ 0. 05),PN组、M3组较PU组根管预备时间短(P＜ 0. 05;PN 组与M3 组比较P＞ 0. 05),PN 组、M3 组在多个测量点的根管偏移程度小于PU 组和WO 组(P ＜ 0. 05).PN 组根尖孔碎屑溢出量少于PU 组、M3 组和WO 组(P ＜ 0. 05).结论: WaveOne 预备弯曲根管省时省力,ProTaper Next 和M3 预备弯曲根管时能较好地保持原有根管形态.
展开▼
