C. Fontana, G. Ferraresso, Letícia Pinheiro Derigi, João Daniel Mendonça de Moura, R. Pelegrine, D. Rocha, C. Bueno, A. S. D. Martin, S. Pinheiro
{"title":"The impact of kinematics, single-file technique and preparation time on the apical extrusion of debris","authors":"C. Fontana, G. Ferraresso, Letícia Pinheiro Derigi, João Daniel Mendonça de Moura, R. Pelegrine, D. Rocha, C. Bueno, A. S. D. Martin, S. Pinheiro","doi":"10.32067/GIE.2020.34.02.14","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To compare canal preparation time and apical extrusion of debris during instrumentation with the ProTaper Next (PTN), HyFlex CM (HCM), HyFlex EDM (HEDM), WaveOne Gold (WOG), and Reciproc Blue (RCB) systems. \nMethodology: Seventy-five roots of extracted mandibular first molars, with curved mesiobuccal canals (10–20°) and independent foramina, were distributed across 5 experimental groups (n=15 each) according to the instrumentation system used. Roots were secured in Eppendorf tubes, the canals were irrigated with double-distilled water, and the instrumentation time was recorded. After instrumentation, the roots were removed from the Eppendorf tubes and the amount of extruded debris was calculated by subtracting the initial weight from the final weight. The assumption of normality was rejected by the Shapiro–Wilk test, followed by the Kruskal–Wallis test with a post-hoc Dunn’s test. A simple linear regression analysis was run to test for correlation between amount of extruded debris and time required for instrumentation. \nResults: The PTN and HCM systems were associated with significantly (p HEDM, WOG, RCB). There was no significant difference between the PTN and HCM groups (p> 0.05), nor between the HEDM, WOG, and RCB groups (p> 0.05). Simple linear regression demonstrated a positive correlation (r = 0.74, p < 0.05) between the amount of debris extruded and instrumentation time. \nConclusions: The RCB, WOG, and HEDM systems were associated with less debris extrusion and shorter instrumentation time when compared to the PTN and HCM systems.","PeriodicalId":42221,"journal":{"name":"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32067/GIE.2020.34.02.14","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
Abstract
Aim: To compare canal preparation time and apical extrusion of debris during instrumentation with the ProTaper Next (PTN), HyFlex CM (HCM), HyFlex EDM (HEDM), WaveOne Gold (WOG), and Reciproc Blue (RCB) systems.
Methodology: Seventy-five roots of extracted mandibular first molars, with curved mesiobuccal canals (10–20°) and independent foramina, were distributed across 5 experimental groups (n=15 each) according to the instrumentation system used. Roots were secured in Eppendorf tubes, the canals were irrigated with double-distilled water, and the instrumentation time was recorded. After instrumentation, the roots were removed from the Eppendorf tubes and the amount of extruded debris was calculated by subtracting the initial weight from the final weight. The assumption of normality was rejected by the Shapiro–Wilk test, followed by the Kruskal–Wallis test with a post-hoc Dunn’s test. A simple linear regression analysis was run to test for correlation between amount of extruded debris and time required for instrumentation.
Results: The PTN and HCM systems were associated with significantly (p HEDM, WOG, RCB). There was no significant difference between the PTN and HCM groups (p> 0.05), nor between the HEDM, WOG, and RCB groups (p> 0.05). Simple linear regression demonstrated a positive correlation (r = 0.74, p < 0.05) between the amount of debris extruded and instrumentation time.
Conclusions: The RCB, WOG, and HEDM systems were associated with less debris extrusion and shorter instrumentation time when compared to the PTN and HCM systems.
目的:比较ProTaper Next (PTN)、HyFlex CM (HCM)、HyFlex EDM (HEDM)、WaveOne Gold (WOG)和Reciproc Blue (RCB)系统的根管准备时间和器械过程中碎片的根尖挤压情况。方法:拔牙的下颌第一磨牙根75颗,中颊管弯曲(10-20°),牙孔独立,根据使用的器械系统分为5个实验组(n=15)。根固定在Eppendorf管中,用双蒸馏水灌溉根管,记录仪器时间。仪器安装后,将根从埃彭多夫管中取出,通过从最终重量中减去初始重量来计算挤出碎片的数量。夏皮罗-威尔克检验拒绝了正态性的假设,随后是Kruskal-Wallis检验和事后邓恩检验。运行简单的线性回归分析,以测试挤压碎片数量与仪器所需时间之间的相关性。结果:PTN和HCM系统与HEDM、WOG、RCB有显著相关性(p)。PTN组与HCM组之间无显著差异(p> 0.05), HEDM组、WOG组与RCB组之间无显著差异(p> 0.05)。简单线性回归表明,挤压碎片量与仪器时间呈正相关(r = 0.74, p < 0.05)。结论:与PTN和HCM系统相比,RCB、WOG和HEDM系统具有更少的碎片挤压和更短的仪器时间。
期刊介绍:
The Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia was founded in 1987 and is the official journal of the Italian Society of Endodontics (SIE). It is a peer-reviewed journal publishing original articles on clinical research and/or clinical methodology, case reports related to Endodontics. The Journal evaluates also contributes in restorative dentistry, dental traumatology, experimental pathophysiology, pharmacology and microbiology dealing with Endodontics.