Mohammed Mustafa, Kailash Attur, Sidharth S Menon, Shylaja Attur
{"title":"不同旋转根管锉系统根管预备后微裂纹的Micro-CT评估。","authors":"Mohammed Mustafa, Kailash Attur, Sidharth S Menon, Shylaja Attur","doi":"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1274_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the propagation of dentinal microcracks in the mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canals following root canal preparation using two different rotary endodontic file systems, TruNatomy (continuous rotation) and MicroMega ONE RECI (reciprocating motion), using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty freshly extracted human mandibular first and second molars were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Root canal preparation was confined to the MB and ML canals in mesial roots of mandibular molars (Vertucci Type IV canal configurations) using TruNatomy and MicroMega ONE RECI systems. Pre- and post- preparation scans were taken for all the specimens using micro-CT to identify and measure dentinal microcracks. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test and Fisher's exact test, with significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results indicated no statistically significant differences between the two systems in terms of microcrack formation or propagation. In the ML canal, 8.0% of teeth prepared with TruNatomy and 12.0% with MicroMega ONE RECI exhibited microcracks (<i>P</i> = 0.643). In the MB canal, microcracks were found in 12.0% of the TruNatomy group and 8.0% of the MicroMega ONE RECI group (<i>P</i> = 0.643). Both systems showed a significant increase in canal volume, but no significant differences between the instruments (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both TruNatomy and MicroMega ONE RECI demonstrated similar outcomes regarding dentinal microcrack formation and propagation in the MB and ML canals, with no significant differences. Both systems were effective in enlarging the canals while preserving the natural canal anatomy. These findings suggest that the choice of instrumentation system can be guided by clinical ease and efficiency as both systems offer comparable mechanical effects on dentin integrity during root canal preparation.</p>","PeriodicalId":94339,"journal":{"name":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","volume":"16 Suppl 4","pages":"S3796-S3802"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11805130/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessing Dentinal Microcracks using Micro-CT after Root Canal Preparation with Different Rotary Endodontic File Systems.\",\"authors\":\"Mohammed Mustafa, Kailash Attur, Sidharth S Menon, Shylaja Attur\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1274_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aimed to evaluate the propagation of dentinal microcracks in the mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canals following root canal preparation using two different rotary endodontic file systems, TruNatomy (continuous rotation) and MicroMega ONE RECI (reciprocating motion), using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Fifty freshly extracted human mandibular first and second molars were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Root canal preparation was confined to the MB and ML canals in mesial roots of mandibular molars (Vertucci Type IV canal configurations) using TruNatomy and MicroMega ONE RECI systems. Pre- and post- preparation scans were taken for all the specimens using micro-CT to identify and measure dentinal microcracks. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test and Fisher's exact test, with significance set at <i>P</i> < 0.05.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The results indicated no statistically significant differences between the two systems in terms of microcrack formation or propagation. In the ML canal, 8.0% of teeth prepared with TruNatomy and 12.0% with MicroMega ONE RECI exhibited microcracks (<i>P</i> = 0.643). In the MB canal, microcracks were found in 12.0% of the TruNatomy group and 8.0% of the MicroMega ONE RECI group (<i>P</i> = 0.643). Both systems showed a significant increase in canal volume, but no significant differences between the instruments (<i>P</i> < 0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both TruNatomy and MicroMega ONE RECI demonstrated similar outcomes regarding dentinal microcrack formation and propagation in the MB and ML canals, with no significant differences. Both systems were effective in enlarging the canals while preserving the natural canal anatomy. These findings suggest that the choice of instrumentation system can be guided by clinical ease and efficiency as both systems offer comparable mechanical effects on dentin integrity during root canal preparation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":94339,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences\",\"volume\":\"16 Suppl 4\",\"pages\":\"S3796-S3802\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-12-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11805130/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1274_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/11/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_1274_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/11/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究采用两种不同的旋转式根管锉系统,TruNatomy(连续旋转)和MicroMega ONE RECI(往复运动),利用微计算机断层扫描(micro-CT)评估根管预备后中颊根管(MB)和中舌根管(ML)牙髓微裂纹的扩展情况。材料与方法:选取50颗新鲜拔除的人下颌第一磨牙和第二磨牙。根管准备仅限于下颌磨牙近中根的MB和ML根管(Vertucci IV型根管配置),使用TruNatomy和MicroMega ONE RECI系统。采用显微ct对所有标本进行预处理前后扫描,以识别和测量牙本质微裂纹。统计学分析采用t检验和Fisher确切检验,P < 0.05为显著性。结果:两种体系在微裂纹形成和扩展方面无统计学差异。在ML管中,8.0%的TruNatomy和12.0%的MicroMega ONE RECI制备的牙齿出现微裂纹(P = 0.643)。TruNatomy组和MicroMega ONE RECI组在MB管中出现微裂纹的比例分别为12.0%和8.0% (P = 0.643)。两种系统均显示管腔容积显著增加,但两种器械间无显著差异(P < 0.001)。结论:TruNatomy和MicroMega ONE RECI在MB和ML管中牙本质微裂纹形成和扩展方面的结果相似,无显著差异。这两种系统都有效地扩大了运河,同时保留了自然的运河解剖结构。这些研究结果表明,器械系统的选择可以以临床的易用性和效率为指导,因为两种系统在根管准备过程中对牙本质完整性的机械影响相当。
Assessing Dentinal Microcracks using Micro-CT after Root Canal Preparation with Different Rotary Endodontic File Systems.
Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the propagation of dentinal microcracks in the mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) canals following root canal preparation using two different rotary endodontic file systems, TruNatomy (continuous rotation) and MicroMega ONE RECI (reciprocating motion), using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT).
Materials and methods: Fifty freshly extracted human mandibular first and second molars were selected based on specific inclusion criteria. Root canal preparation was confined to the MB and ML canals in mesial roots of mandibular molars (Vertucci Type IV canal configurations) using TruNatomy and MicroMega ONE RECI systems. Pre- and post- preparation scans were taken for all the specimens using micro-CT to identify and measure dentinal microcracks. Statistical analysis was performed using a t-test and Fisher's exact test, with significance set at P < 0.05.
Results: The results indicated no statistically significant differences between the two systems in terms of microcrack formation or propagation. In the ML canal, 8.0% of teeth prepared with TruNatomy and 12.0% with MicroMega ONE RECI exhibited microcracks (P = 0.643). In the MB canal, microcracks were found in 12.0% of the TruNatomy group and 8.0% of the MicroMega ONE RECI group (P = 0.643). Both systems showed a significant increase in canal volume, but no significant differences between the instruments (P < 0.001).
Conclusion: Both TruNatomy and MicroMega ONE RECI demonstrated similar outcomes regarding dentinal microcrack formation and propagation in the MB and ML canals, with no significant differences. Both systems were effective in enlarging the canals while preserving the natural canal anatomy. These findings suggest that the choice of instrumentation system can be guided by clinical ease and efficiency as both systems offer comparable mechanical effects on dentin integrity during root canal preparation.