초록
근관형성을 위해 표준화된 근관형성기구에 비해 taper가 큰 기구들이 사용되고 있으며 이를 이용하여 형성된 근관은 taper가 큰 근관의 모양을 갖는다. 근관충전방법에 있어 근관의 크기에 적합한 1차적 gutta-percha cone을 선택할 필요가 있다. 본 연구에서는 .04 및 .06 taper의 전동화일로 형성된 근관에 열연화충전법을 위해 가장 적합한 1차 cone을 선택하기 위한 지침 마련의 목적으로, 근단공의 크기와 근관의 taper에 따른 gutta-percha cone의 근단부 근관 내 적 합도를 평가하였다. ProFile$^{(R)}$ .04 taper와 .06 taper를 이용하여 Crown down 방법으로 60개의 모형근관을 형성하였다. 표준화 gutta-percha cone, Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ 및 .06 gutta-percha cone, MF, F, FM 및 M 크기의 비표준화 gutta-percha cone의 근관 내 적합도는 치근단 5mm의 근관면적에 대한 gutta-percha cone의 점유 면적비(%)로 하였다. .04 taper, 25번 크기의 근관에서는 F, MF 크기의 비표준화 cone이 표준화 cone과 Dia-Pro 180-.04$^{TM}$ 보다 우수한 근관적합도를 나타내었고(p<0.05), 30번 크기의 근관에서는 F, Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$, FM 크기의 gutta-percha cone 모두 표준화 cone보다 우수한 근관적합도를 나타내었으나(p<0.05), 35번 크기의 근관에서는 모든 gutta-percha cone 사이에 유의한 차이를 나타내지 않았다(p>0.05) .06 taper, 25번 크기의 근관에서는 사용된 비표준화 cone 모두가 표준화 cone, Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$ 보다 나은 근관적합도를 나타내었고(P<0.05), 30번 크기의 근관에서는 표준화 cone을 제외한 나머지 gutta-percha cone에서 유의한 차이를 발견할 수 없었다. 35번 크기의 근관에는 M 크기의 비표준화 cone이 가장 우수한 근관적합도를 보이고 있는 것으로 나타났으며, FM과 Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$ 사이에서는 유의한 차이가 나타나지 않았다(p>0.05).
The purpose of this study was to evaluate the apical fitness of non-standardized gutta-percha cones in root canals prepared with rotary Ni-Ti root canal instruments of various tapers and apical tip sizes. Simulated sixty curved root canals of plastic blocks were prepared with crown-down technique using rotary root canal instruments of Maillefer ProFile$^{(R)}$ .04 and .06 taper (Maillefer Instrument SA, Switzerland). Specimens were divided into six groups and prepared as follows: Group 1, prepared up to size 25 of .04 taper ; Group 2, prepared up to size 30 of .04 taper ; Group 3, prepared up to size 35 of .04 taper ; Group 4, prepared up to size 25 of .06 taper ; Group 5, prepared up to size 30 of .06 taper ; Group 6 ; prepared up to size 35 of .06 taper. After cutting off the coronal portion of plastic, blocks perpendicular to the long axis of the canal with the use of a diamond saw, apical 5mm of canal space was analyzed. Prepared apical canal spaces were duplicated using rubber base impression material to evaluate two dimensional total area of apical canal space. Various sized gutta-percha cones were applied in the 5mm-apical canal space, which were size 25, size 30 and size 35 standardized gutta-percha cone, Diadent Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ and .06$^{TM}$(Diadent, Korea), and medium-fine (MF), fine (F), fine-medium (FM) and medium (M) sized non-standardized gutta-percha cones (Diadent, Korea). Coronal excess gutta-percha were cut off with a sharp blade. Photographs of impressed apical canal spaces and gutta-percha cones were taken with a CCD camera under a stereomicroscope and stored in a computer. Areas of the total canal space and gutta-percha cones were calculated using a digitalized image analysing program, CompuScope (Sungjin Multimedia Co., Korea). Ratio of apical fitness was obtained by calculating the area of gutta-percha cone to the total area of the canal space. The data were analysed statistically using One-way Analysis of Variance and Duncan's Multiple Range Test. The results were as follows: 1. In canals prepared up to size 25 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .04 taper, non-standardized MF and F cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ or size 25 standardized ones (p<0.05). 2. In canals prepared up to size 30 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .04 taper, non-standardized F cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ or size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05), and non-standardized MF cones occupied more canal space than size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05). 3. In canals prepared up to size 35 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .04 taper, there was no significant difference in canal space occupation among non-standardized MF and F, size 35 standardized, and Dia-Pro ISO-.04$^{TM}$ cones (p>0.05). 4. In canals prepared up to size 25 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .06 taper, non-standardized MF and F cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$, or size 25 standardized ones (p<0.05), and Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$, cones occupied significantly more space than size 25 standardized ones (p<0.05). 5. In canals prepared up to size 30 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .06 taper, non-standardized FM cones occupied significantly more canal space than Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$ or size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05), and non-standardized F cones occupied significantly more canal space than size 30 standardized ones (p<0.05). 6. In canals prepared up to size 35 ProFile$^{(R)}$ of .06 taper, non-standardized M and FM, Dia-Pro ISO-.06$^{TM}$ occupied significantly more canal space than size 35 standardized ones (p<0.05). In summary, in both canals prepared with .04 or .06 taper ProFile$^{(R)}$, non-standardized cones showed better fitness than Dia-Pro ISO$^{TM}$ or standardized ones, which was more characteristic in smaller canals.
(Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University)