Comparative Evaluation of Shaping Ability and Cleaning Efficiency of Three Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems

Reham I. Zehairy, M. Osman, Amro A. Abd El-Razik
{"title":"Comparative Evaluation of Shaping Ability and Cleaning Efficiency of Three Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems","authors":"Reham I. Zehairy, M. Osman, Amro A. Abd El-Razik","doi":"10.21608/mjd.2022.259770","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":": Objective: This study was conducted to compare the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of Mtwo, ProTaper Next and HyFlex CM rotary systems. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 root canals with curvatures ranging between 20o and 40o were divided into three groups of 15 canals: Mtwo, ProTaper Next and HyFlex CM based on pre-instrumentation radiographs. Canals were prepared to an apical size of 30. Using pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs, canal straightening was determined with a computer image analysis program. Preparation time was also recorded. These data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey’s test, and significance was set at P < 0.05. The amounts of debris and smear layer were quantified based on a numerical evaluation scale and were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: HyFlex CM and ProTaper Next maintained the canal curvature significantly better than Mtwo (P < 0.05). ProTaper Next was significantly faster than the other two systems (P < 0.05). For debris removal, Mtwo and ProTaper Next achieved significantly better results (P < 0.05) than HyFlex CM in the apical and middle canal thirds. The smear layer results were not significantly different for the different parts of the canals (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, HyFlex CM and ProTaper Next maintained the original canal curvature better than Mtwo. The use of Mtwo and HyFlex CM required more time to prepare the curved canals. Mtwo and ProTaper Next resulted in better canal cleanliness compared with HyFlex CM.","PeriodicalId":308616,"journal":{"name":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","volume":"38 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Mansoura Journal of Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21608/mjd.2022.259770","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

: Objective: This study was conducted to compare the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of Mtwo, ProTaper Next and HyFlex CM rotary systems. Materials and Methods: A total of 45 root canals with curvatures ranging between 20o and 40o were divided into three groups of 15 canals: Mtwo, ProTaper Next and HyFlex CM based on pre-instrumentation radiographs. Canals were prepared to an apical size of 30. Using pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs, canal straightening was determined with a computer image analysis program. Preparation time was also recorded. These data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post hoc Tukey’s test, and significance was set at P < 0.05. The amounts of debris and smear layer were quantified based on a numerical evaluation scale and were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results: HyFlex CM and ProTaper Next maintained the canal curvature significantly better than Mtwo (P < 0.05). ProTaper Next was significantly faster than the other two systems (P < 0.05). For debris removal, Mtwo and ProTaper Next achieved significantly better results (P < 0.05) than HyFlex CM in the apical and middle canal thirds. The smear layer results were not significantly different for the different parts of the canals (P > 0.05). Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, HyFlex CM and ProTaper Next maintained the original canal curvature better than Mtwo. The use of Mtwo and HyFlex CM required more time to prepare the curved canals. Mtwo and ProTaper Next resulted in better canal cleanliness compared with HyFlex CM.
三种不同镍钛旋转系统成形能力和清洗效率的比较评价
目的:比较Mtwo、ProTaper Next和HyFlex CM旋转系统的成形能力和清洁效率。材料与方法:根据预备x线片将45根弯曲度在200 ~ 400度之间的根管分为Mtwo、ProTaper Next和HyFlex CM三组,每组15根。根管准备到根尖尺寸为30。使用器械前和器械后的x线片,用计算机图像分析程序确定根管矫直。同时记录了准备时间。采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和事后Tukey检验对数据进行分析,P < 0.05为显著性。根据数值评价量表量化碎片和涂抹层的数量,并使用Kruskal-Wallis试验进行统计分析。结果:HyFlex CM和ProTaper Next对根管曲率的维持明显优于Mtwo (P < 0.05)。ProTaper Next的速度显著高于其他两种系统(P < 0.05)。在根尖和中根管三分之一处,Mtwo和ProTaper Next的清除效果明显优于HyFlex CM (P < 0.05)。不同根管部位的涂片层结果差异无统计学意义(P > 0.05)。结论:在本研究条件下,HyFlex CM和ProTaper Next比Mtwo更能维持根管的原始曲率。使用Mtwo和HyFlex CM需要更多的时间来准备弯曲的管。与HyFlex CM相比,Mtwo和ProTaper Next的根管清洁度更高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信