Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To compare preparation times using manual, rotary, and reciprocating files during pulpectomy treatment of primary molars.
METHODS: This study was an in vitro, randomised, cross-sectional study.
METHODS: The study was performed on 60 extracted human primary mandibular second molars. Only mesiobuccal canals were prepared using one of three preparation techniques; each preparation technique group comprised 20 canals. Canal preparations were performed by a single, skilled operator using stainless-steel (ss) K-files (ISO size 20-35), a ProTaper Gold SX file, and a WaveOne Gold Medium file following glide path preparation. Preparation times were recorded in second (s) with a digital stopwatch.
METHODS: Preparation times were compared using analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, where appropriate. The level of significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean preparation time using the ss K-files was significantly longer (186.4 s) than when using the ProTaper Gold SX (29.6 s) or WaveOne Gold Medium files (30.5 s) (P < 0.001). Similar preparation times were recorded when using the ProTaper Gold SX and WaveOne Gold Medium files (P = 0.939).
CONCLUSIONS: Preparation times with the ProTaper Gold SX and WaveOne Gold Medium files were significantly faster than when using the ss K-files to prepare primary tooth root canals for pulpectomy. Similar preparation times were noted when using the rotary and reciprocation instrumentation groups (P > 0.05).
METHODS: This study was an in vitro, randomised, cross-sectional study.
METHODS: The study was performed on 60 extracted human primary mandibular second molars. Only mesiobuccal canals were prepared using one of three preparation techniques; each preparation technique group comprised 20 canals. Canal preparations were performed by a single, skilled operator using stainless-steel (ss) K-files (ISO size 20-35), a ProTaper Gold SX file, and a WaveOne Gold Medium file following glide path preparation. Preparation times were recorded in second (s) with a digital stopwatch.
METHODS: Preparation times were compared using analysis of variance and the Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance, where appropriate. The level of significance was set at P ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS: The mean preparation time using the ss K-files was significantly longer (186.4 s) than when using the ProTaper Gold SX (29.6 s) or WaveOne Gold Medium files (30.5 s) (P < 0.001). Similar preparation times were recorded when using the ProTaper Gold SX and WaveOne Gold Medium files (P = 0.939).
CONCLUSIONS: Preparation times with the ProTaper Gold SX and WaveOne Gold Medium files were significantly faster than when using the ss K-files to prepare primary tooth root canals for pulpectomy. Similar preparation times were noted when using the rotary and reciprocation instrumentation groups (P > 0.05).
摘要：
目的：使用说明书比较制备时间，旋转,和原发性磨牙牙髓切除术治疗期间的往复文件。
方法：本研究是一项体外研究，随机化，横断面研究。
方法：对60颗拔除的人下颌第二磨牙进行研究。仅使用三种制备技术之一制备近颊管；每个制备技术组包括20条运河。运河的准备是由一个单一的，熟练的操作员使用不锈钢（SS）K文件（ISO尺寸20-35），ProTaperGoldSX文件,和滑翔路径准备后的WaveOneGoldMedium文件。用数字秒表以秒记录制备时间。
方法：使用方差分析和Kruskal-Wallis方差分析比较准备时间，在适当的地方。显著性水平设定为P≤0.05。
结果：与使用ProTaperGoldSX（29.6s）或WaveOneGoldMedium文件（30.5s）相比，使用ssK文件的平均准备时间明显更长（186.4s）（P<0.001）。当使用ProTaperGoldSX和WaveOneGoldMedium文件时,记录了类似的制备时间(P=0.939)。
结论：ProTaperGoldSX和WaveOneGoldMedium文件的准备时间明显快于使用ssK文件准备牙髓切除术的原始牙根管时。当使用旋转和往复仪器组时,注意到相似的制备时间(P>0.05)。
方法：本研究是一项体外研究，随机化，横断面研究。
方法：对60颗拔除的人下颌第二磨牙进行研究。仅使用三种制备技术之一制备近颊管；每个制备技术组包括20条运河。运河的准备是由一个单一的，熟练的操作员使用不锈钢（SS）K文件（ISO尺寸20-35），ProTaperGoldSX文件,和滑翔路径准备后的WaveOneGoldMedium文件。用数字秒表以秒记录制备时间。
方法：使用方差分析和Kruskal-Wallis方差分析比较准备时间，在适当的地方。显著性水平设定为P≤0.05。
结果：与使用ProTaperGoldSX（29.6s）或WaveOneGoldMedium文件（30.5s）相比，使用ssK文件的平均准备时间明显更长（186.4s）（P<0.001）。当使用ProTaperGoldSX和WaveOneGoldMedium文件时,记录了类似的制备时间(P=0.939)。
结论：ProTaperGoldSX和WaveOneGoldMedium文件的准备时间明显快于使用ssK文件准备牙髓切除术的原始牙根管时。当使用旋转和往复仪器组时,注意到相似的制备时间(P>0.05)。
