Àá½Ã¸¸ ±â´Ù·Á ÁÖ¼¼¿ä. ·ÎµùÁßÀÔ´Ï´Ù.

ProTaper¸¦ ÀÌ¿ëÇÑ ±Ù°ü Çü¼ºÀÇ ´Ü°èº° ºÐ¼®

Step by Step Analysis of Root Canal Instrumentation with $ProTaper^{(R)}$

´ëÇÑÄ¡°úº¸Á¸ÇÐȸÁö 2006³â 31±Ç 1È£ p.50 ~ 57
±è¹ÌÈñ, ¹ÚÀç°æ, °­¹Ì¼±, ¹ÚÁ¤±æ,
¼Ò¼Ó »ó¼¼Á¤º¸
±è¹ÌÈñ (  ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¹ÚÀç°æ (  ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
°­¹Ì¼± (  ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç
¹ÚÁ¤±æ (  ) - ºÎ»ê´ëÇб³ Ä¡°ú´ëÇÐ Ä¡°úº¸Á¸Çб³½Ç

Abstract

ÀÌ ¿¬±¸ÀÇ ¸ñÀûÀº $ProTaper^{(R)}$ systemÀ» »ç¿ëÇÏ¿´À» ¶§, °¢ ´Ü°èº°·Î ±Ù°ü Çü¼º °á°ú¸¦ ºÐ¼® ÇÏ´Â °ÍÀÌ´Ù. 20°³ÀÇ ·¹Áø ºí¶ôÀ» ±Ù°ü ¼ºÇü ¹æ¹ý¿¡ µû¶ó, ¿£Áø ±¸µ¿Çü $ProTaper^{(R)}$·Î Àüü ±Ù°üÀ» ¼ºÇüÇÑ ±ºÀ» R±º, ¼öµ¿Çü $ProTaper^{(R)}$·Î Àüü ±Ù°üÀ» ¼ºÇüÇÑ ±ºÀ» M±ºÀ¸·Î ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±Ù°üÀÇ ¼ú Àü, ¼ú ÈÄ À̹ÌÁö¸¦ °¢ ÆÄÀÏ ´Ü°èº°·Î ½ºÄµÇÑ ÈÄ, Áß½ÉÀ̵¿·ü »êÃâÀ» À§ÇØ ¿ø·¡ÀÇ ±Ù°ü À̹ÌÁö¿Í °¢ ´Ü°èÀÇ ÆÄÀÏ »ç¿ëÈÄÀÇ À̹ÌÁö¸¦ °¢°¢ ÁßøÇÏ¿´°í, ±Ù°üÀÇ º¯À§·® »êÃâÀ» À§ÇØ °¢ ´Ü°èÀÇ ÆÄÀÏ »ç¿ëÈÄÀÇ À̹ÌÁö¿Í Á÷Àü ÆÄÀÏ »ç¿ëÈÄÀÇ À̹ÌÁö¸¦ ÁßøÇÏ¿´´Ù. ±Ù´Ü°øÀ¸·ÎºÎÅÍÀÇ ¼öÁ÷°Å¸® 1 2, 3, 4±×¸®°í 5mmÀ§Ä¡¿¡¼­ Áß½ÉÀ̵¿·ü°ú ±Ù°üÀÇ º¯À§·®À» ÃøÁ¤ÇÏ¿´´Ù. ½ÇÇè °á°ú R±ºÀÇ ¸ðµçÁöÁ¡¿¡¼­ °¢ ´Ü°èº° Áß½ÉÀ̵¿·ü°ú ±Ù°ü º¯À§·®Àº °¢°¢ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù (p<0.05). M±º¿¡¼­ 1 mm¸¦ Á¦¿ÜÇÑ ¸ðµç ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼­ °¢ ´Ü°èº° Á᫐ À̵¿·ü°ú ±Ù°ü º¯À§ ·®Àº °¢°¢ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾ú´Ù (p<0.05). ±×·¯³ª M±ºÀÇ 1mm ÁöÁ¡¿¡¼­ F2 file stepÀº Åë°èÇÐÀûÀ¸·Î Å« Á᫐ À̵¿·ü°ú ±Ù°ü º¯À§·®À» º¸¿´´Ù (p<0.05). º» ¿¬±¸ÀÇ °á°ú¿¡¼­ ¿£Áø ±¸µ¿Çü $ProTaper^{(R)}$ »ç¿ë ½Ã¿¡´Â °¢ ÆÄÀÏ ´Ü°èº° ±Ù°ü º¯À§ Á¤µµ¿¡ À¯ÀÇÇÑ Â÷ÀÌ°¡ ¾ø¾úÀ¸³ª, ¼öµ¿Çü ProTaper·Î ±Ù°ü ¼ºÇüÀ» ÇÏ¿´À» ¶§ , F2 file step¿¡¼­ ƯÈ÷ ±Ù°ü º¯À§°¡ Å©°Ô ³ªÅ¸³µ´Ù.

The purpose of this study was to investigate influence of each file step of $ProTaper^{(R)}$ system on canal transportation. Twenty simulated canals were prepared with either engine-driven $ProTaper^{(R)}$ or manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$, Group R-resin blocks were instrumented with rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ and group M-resin blocks were instrumented with manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$. Pre-operative resin blocks and post-operative resin blocks after each file step preparation were scanned. Original canal image and the image after using each file step were superimposed for calculation of centering ratio The image after using each file step alld image after using previous file step were superimposed for calculation of the amount of deviation. Measurements were taken horizontally at five different levels (1 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm) from the level of apical foramen. In rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ instrumentation group, centering ratio and the amount of deviation of each step at all levels were not significantly different (p>0.05). In manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$ instrumentation group, centering ratio and the amount of deviation of each step at all levels except of 1 mm were not significantly different (p>0.05). At the level of 1 mn, F2 file step had significantly large centering ratio and the amount of deviation (p<0.05). Under the condition of this study, F2 file step of manual ProTaper tended to transport the apical part of the canals than that of rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$.

Å°¿öµå

´Ü°èº°;±Ù°üº¯À§;Á᫐ À̵¿·ü;º¯À§ ·®;ProTaper;Step by step;Canal transportation;Centering ratio;The amount of deviation

¿ø¹® ¹× ¸µÅ©¾Æ¿ô Á¤º¸

 

µîÀçÀú³Î Á¤º¸

KCI