Evaluation of Remaining Dentin Thickness After Manual and Evaluation of Remaining Dentin Thickness After Manual and Rotary Instrumentation In Primary Molars Using Cone Beam Rotary Instrumentation In Primary Molars Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. (An In-Vitro Study)

nada eldemery, Osama Elshehawy, R. Nasr, M. Badr
{"title":"Evaluation of Remaining Dentin Thickness After Manual and Evaluation of Remaining Dentin Thickness After Manual and Rotary Instrumentation In Primary Molars Using Cone Beam Rotary Instrumentation In Primary Molars Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. (An In-Vitro Study)","authors":"nada eldemery, Osama Elshehawy, R. Nasr, M. Badr","doi":"10.54623/fdj.7024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: To compare the radicular dentin thickness before and after instrumentation by manual stainless-steel (K-files) versus rotary files (AF™ Baby File) at coronal, middle, and apical thirds using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Forty roots of extracted mandibular primary molars were collected, and randomly and equally divided into 2 groups. Manual Group was prepared by K-files, and Rotary Group was prepared by rotary AF™ Baby File system. Samples were decapitated and stabilized in epoxy resin blocks. Samples were subjected to CBCT scan before and after instrumentation for radicular dentin thickness evaluation at 3 measuring points; apical, middle, and coronal. Results: An average amount of dentin removed was found to be significantly higher in Manual Group compared to Rotary Group in the 3 measuring points (P <0.005). Conclusion: Rotary files can be considered more preferable than manual files in terms of preservation of radicular dentin thickness after root canal instrumentation, therefore rotary files can be a suitable substitute for conventional SS manual files","PeriodicalId":100562,"journal":{"name":"Future Dental Journal","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Future Dental Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54623/fdj.7024","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Aim: To compare the radicular dentin thickness before and after instrumentation by manual stainless-steel (K-files) versus rotary files (AF™ Baby File) at coronal, middle, and apical thirds using Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Forty roots of extracted mandibular primary molars were collected, and randomly and equally divided into 2 groups. Manual Group was prepared by K-files, and Rotary Group was prepared by rotary AF™ Baby File system. Samples were decapitated and stabilized in epoxy resin blocks. Samples were subjected to CBCT scan before and after instrumentation for radicular dentin thickness evaluation at 3 measuring points; apical, middle, and coronal. Results: An average amount of dentin removed was found to be significantly higher in Manual Group compared to Rotary Group in the 3 measuring points (P <0.005). Conclusion: Rotary files can be considered more preferable than manual files in terms of preservation of radicular dentin thickness after root canal instrumentation, therefore rotary files can be a suitable substitute for conventional SS manual files
人工牙本质厚度评估与人工牙本质厚度评估与旋转牙本质厚度评估使用锥形束计算机断层旋转牙本质测量(一项体外研究)
目的:使用锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)比较手工不锈钢(k -锉)和旋转锉(AF™Baby锉)在冠状、中间和根尖三分之一处的根状牙本质厚度前后的差异。材料与方法:收集拔除的下颌初生磨牙根体40颗,随机等分2组。手工组采用K-files制备,Rotary组采用Rotary AF™Baby File system制备。样品被斩首并在环氧树脂块中稳定。在仪器测量前后对样品进行CBCT扫描,在3个测量点评估根状牙本质厚度;顶端,中间和冠状。结果:3个测点手工组牙本质平均去除量明显高于旋转组(P <0.005)。结论:在根管预备后,旋转锉比手工锉更能保留根状牙本质的厚度,因此旋转锉可作为常规SS手工锉的合适替代品
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信