Izvorni znanstveni članak
https://doi.org/10.15644/asc51/3/4
Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCAD
Jorge Rubio
; Zavod za endodonciju, Katoličko sveučilište Valencija, Španjolska
José Ignacio Zarzosa
; Zavod za endodonciju, Katoličko sveučilište Valencija, Španjolska
Antonio Pallarés
; Zavod za endodonciju, Katoličko sveučilište Valencija, Španjolska
Sažetak
Objective: The aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files. Materials and Methods: 300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before
rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene’s test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for statistical
analysis. Results: Levene’s test showed no equality of variances (P<0.05), therefore Welch´s and Games-Howell’s tests were applied to cutting areas, showing significant differences in all thirds and overall (P<0.05). No differences in root canal anatomy preservation were observed (P>0.05). In non-instrumented areas, significant differences were found (P<0.05) in middle third being better in Reciproc®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®, and in apical thirds being higher P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®. Conclusions: In cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For noninstrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and
Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®, Reciproc®, Hyflex EDM®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in apically.
Ključne riječi
Root Canal Preparation; Dental HighSpeed Equipment
Hrčak ID:
186747
URI
Datum izdavanja:
26.9.2017.
Posjeta: 2.025 *