不同旋转锉和往复锉系统在模拟 S 型根管中的塑形能力

IF 1.6 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
European Endodontic Journal Pub Date : 2024-03-08 Epub Date: 2024-02-20 DOI:10.14744/eej.2023.93824
Okba Mahmoud, Sara Alhimairi, Diana Sultan, Ayah Ali
{"title":"不同旋转锉和往复锉系统在模拟 S 型根管中的塑形能力","authors":"Okba Mahmoud, Sara Alhimairi, Diana Sultan, Ayah Ali","doi":"10.14744/eej.2023.93824","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to examine the shaping ability of six rotary and reciprocating file systems, as well as hybrid techniques in simulated S-shaped root canals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A hundred and twenty S-shaped radiopaque thermosetting epoxy resin blocks were grouped according to the system used for biomechanical preparation. Six groups of 15 canals each were prepared using TruNatomy, Procodile, VDW Rotate, Hyflex CM, OneCurve, and WaveOne Gold, respectively. Two additional hybrid (Procodile/Hyflex CM and Procodile/TruNatomy) groups (n=15 each) were added after evaluating the results of individual systems. All canals were enlarged to 0.25 mm apically. Canal transportation, centering ability, diameter increase, and iatrogenic errors were assessed by superimposed pre-operative and post-operative images. AutoCAD was used for data analysis. All groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and Tukey honest significant difference test (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hyflex CM resulted in the most conservative diameter increase in all thirds (coronal, middle, and apical; p<0.001). Procodile showed the best (p<0.001) centering ability in the coronal and middle thirds, while TruNatomy resulted in the least canal transportation and most centering preparation in the apical third (p<0.001). Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM produced the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third (p<0.001). No instrument breakage occurred, and no ledge, elbow, or apical zip formation was observed during canal preparation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM showed remarkable results in preserving the canal diameter in all thirds and resulted in the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third of the canal. However, when treatment cost and duration limit the clinical applicability of the hybrid technique, clinicians can use a single file system (Hyflex CM or TruNatomy) since it shows satisfactory results in all parameters when compared with a hybrid system.</p>","PeriodicalId":11860,"journal":{"name":"European Endodontic Journal","volume":" ","pages":"114 - 123"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938361/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Shaping Ability of Different Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems in Simulated S-Shaped Root Canals.\",\"authors\":\"Okba Mahmoud, Sara Alhimairi, Diana Sultan, Ayah Ali\",\"doi\":\"10.14744/eej.2023.93824\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to examine the shaping ability of six rotary and reciprocating file systems, as well as hybrid techniques in simulated S-shaped root canals.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A hundred and twenty S-shaped radiopaque thermosetting epoxy resin blocks were grouped according to the system used for biomechanical preparation. Six groups of 15 canals each were prepared using TruNatomy, Procodile, VDW Rotate, Hyflex CM, OneCurve, and WaveOne Gold, respectively. Two additional hybrid (Procodile/Hyflex CM and Procodile/TruNatomy) groups (n=15 each) were added after evaluating the results of individual systems. All canals were enlarged to 0.25 mm apically. Canal transportation, centering ability, diameter increase, and iatrogenic errors were assessed by superimposed pre-operative and post-operative images. AutoCAD was used for data analysis. All groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and Tukey honest significant difference test (p<0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Hyflex CM resulted in the most conservative diameter increase in all thirds (coronal, middle, and apical; p<0.001). Procodile showed the best (p<0.001) centering ability in the coronal and middle thirds, while TruNatomy resulted in the least canal transportation and most centering preparation in the apical third (p<0.001). Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM produced the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third (p<0.001). No instrument breakage occurred, and no ledge, elbow, or apical zip formation was observed during canal preparation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM showed remarkable results in preserving the canal diameter in all thirds and resulted in the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third of the canal. However, when treatment cost and duration limit the clinical applicability of the hybrid technique, clinicians can use a single file system (Hyflex CM or TruNatomy) since it shows satisfactory results in all parameters when compared with a hybrid system.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11860,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Endodontic Journal\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"114 - 123\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-03-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10938361/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Endodontic Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.14744/eej.2023.93824\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/2/20 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Endodontic Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.14744/eej.2023.93824","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/20 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

研究目的本研究旨在考察六种旋转和往复锉系统以及混合技术在模拟 S 型根管中的塑形能力:方法:根据生物力学制备所使用的系统将 120 个不透射线的 S 形热固性环氧树脂块分组。分别使用 TruNatomy、Procodile、VDW Rotate、Hyflex CM、OneCurve 和 WaveOne Gold 制备了六组根管,每组 15 根。在对单个系统的结果进行评估后,又增加了两个混合组(Procodile/Hyflex CM 和 Procodile/TruNatomy)(各 15 人)。所有的根管都扩大到 0.25 毫米。通过术前和术后图像的叠加来评估牙槽的运输、对中能力、直径增加和先天性误差。数据分析使用 AutoCAD。通过方差分析和 Tukey 诚实显著性差异检验(pResults:结果:Hyflex CM 在所有三分区(冠状区、中间区和根尖区)的直径增加最为保守;p 结论:Hyflex CM 在所有三分区(冠状区、中间区和根尖区)的直径增加最为保守:Procodile 和 Hyflex CM 的杂交在保留所有三度牙管直径方面效果显著,而且在中间三分之一的牙管中,牙管移位最少,中心定位能力最强。然而,当治疗成本和时间限制了混合技术的临床适用性时,临床医生可以使用单锉系统(Hyflex CM 或 TruNatomy),因为与混合系统相比,单锉系统在所有参数上都显示出令人满意的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Shaping Ability of Different Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems in Simulated S-Shaped Root Canals.

Objective: This study aimed to examine the shaping ability of six rotary and reciprocating file systems, as well as hybrid techniques in simulated S-shaped root canals.

Methods: A hundred and twenty S-shaped radiopaque thermosetting epoxy resin blocks were grouped according to the system used for biomechanical preparation. Six groups of 15 canals each were prepared using TruNatomy, Procodile, VDW Rotate, Hyflex CM, OneCurve, and WaveOne Gold, respectively. Two additional hybrid (Procodile/Hyflex CM and Procodile/TruNatomy) groups (n=15 each) were added after evaluating the results of individual systems. All canals were enlarged to 0.25 mm apically. Canal transportation, centering ability, diameter increase, and iatrogenic errors were assessed by superimposed pre-operative and post-operative images. AutoCAD was used for data analysis. All groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and Tukey honest significant difference test (p<0.05).

Results: Hyflex CM resulted in the most conservative diameter increase in all thirds (coronal, middle, and apical; p<0.001). Procodile showed the best (p<0.001) centering ability in the coronal and middle thirds, while TruNatomy resulted in the least canal transportation and most centering preparation in the apical third (p<0.001). Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM produced the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third (p<0.001). No instrument breakage occurred, and no ledge, elbow, or apical zip formation was observed during canal preparation.

Conclusion: Hybridisation of Procodile and Hyflex CM showed remarkable results in preserving the canal diameter in all thirds and resulted in the least canal transportation and best centering ability in the middle third of the canal. However, when treatment cost and duration limit the clinical applicability of the hybrid technique, clinicians can use a single file system (Hyflex CM or TruNatomy) since it shows satisfactory results in all parameters when compared with a hybrid system.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European Endodontic Journal
European Endodontic Journal DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
5.60%
发文量
25
×
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