手锉、Mtwo、Reciproc和温和锉旋转系统对根管运输、对中能力和封闭质量的影响比较。

Maryam Kakoienejad, Mobina Najafifard, Sara Tavassoli-Hojjati, Ladan Hafezi, Saba Aghaei
{"title":"手锉、Mtwo、Reciproc和温和锉旋转系统对根管运输、对中能力和封闭质量的影响比较。","authors":"Maryam Kakoienejad, Mobina Najafifard, Sara Tavassoli-Hojjati, Ladan Hafezi, Saba Aghaei","doi":"10.30476/dentjods.2024.100763.2247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Statement of the problem: </strong>Employing different instruments may have different impact on the outcome of root canal treatments. Deviation from the original canal path and defective root canal obturation may lead to pulpectomy treatment failure.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the primary molar canal transportation, centering ability, and obturation quality of hand files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile rotating machines in root canal treatments.</p><p><strong>Materials and method: </strong>In this <i>in vitro</i> experimental study, eighty primary molar roots were randomly assigned to four groups. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were provided for the samples, and hand files (group 1), Mtwo (group 2), Reciproc (group 3), and Gentlefile (group 4) were used to instrument the root canals. Once more, CBCT scans were acquired, and at 1, 2, and 3mm from the apex as well as 1 mm from the orifice, the canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Zeolite (ZOE) cement was used to obturate every root canal. To evaluate the obturation density, number of voids, and underfilling in each group, new CBCT scans were obtained. For every tooth, the maximum, minimum, and average Hounsfield units (HU) were noted. One-way ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Tukey's HSD test were used to analyze the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mtwo exhibited considerably superior centering ability than Gentlefile at 2mm from the apex in the mesiodistal direction (<i>p</i> Value< 0.05). Gentlefile had significantly higher buccolingual canal transportation than Reciproc at 3 mm from the apex (P0.05). Minimum HU, underfilling, and void numbers did not differ amongst the four groups (<i>p</i>= 0.791, <i>p</i>= 0.1, and <i>p</i>= 0.548). Reciproc had substantially higher maximum and average HU, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files (<i>p</i>< 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When compared to other systems, Gentlefile showed higher transportation and less centering ability. Reciproc had the highest obturation density, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files.</p>","PeriodicalId":73702,"journal":{"name":"Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)","volume":"26 1","pages":"76-87"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909399/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars.\",\"authors\":\"Maryam Kakoienejad, Mobina Najafifard, Sara Tavassoli-Hojjati, Ladan Hafezi, Saba Aghaei\",\"doi\":\"10.30476/dentjods.2024.100763.2247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Statement of the problem: </strong>Employing different instruments may have different impact on the outcome of root canal treatments. Deviation from the original canal path and defective root canal obturation may lead to pulpectomy treatment failure.</p><p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared the primary molar canal transportation, centering ability, and obturation quality of hand files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile rotating machines in root canal treatments.</p><p><strong>Materials and method: </strong>In this <i>in vitro</i> experimental study, eighty primary molar roots were randomly assigned to four groups. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were provided for the samples, and hand files (group 1), Mtwo (group 2), Reciproc (group 3), and Gentlefile (group 4) were used to instrument the root canals. Once more, CBCT scans were acquired, and at 1, 2, and 3mm from the apex as well as 1 mm from the orifice, the canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Zeolite (ZOE) cement was used to obturate every root canal. To evaluate the obturation density, number of voids, and underfilling in each group, new CBCT scans were obtained. For every tooth, the maximum, minimum, and average Hounsfield units (HU) were noted. One-way ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Tukey's HSD test were used to analyze the data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mtwo exhibited considerably superior centering ability than Gentlefile at 2mm from the apex in the mesiodistal direction (<i>p</i> Value< 0.05). Gentlefile had significantly higher buccolingual canal transportation than Reciproc at 3 mm from the apex (P0.05). Minimum HU, underfilling, and void numbers did not differ amongst the four groups (<i>p</i>= 0.791, <i>p</i>= 0.1, and <i>p</i>= 0.548). Reciproc had substantially higher maximum and average HU, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files (<i>p</i>< 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>When compared to other systems, Gentlefile showed higher transportation and less centering ability. Reciproc had the highest obturation density, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73702,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)\",\"volume\":\"26 1\",\"pages\":\"76-87\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11909399/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2024.100763.2247\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of dentistry (Shiraz, Iran)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.30476/dentjods.2024.100763.2247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

问题陈述:使用不同的器械可能对根管治疗的结果有不同的影响。偏离原根管路径和不完善的根管封闭可能导致髓切除术治疗失败。目的:本研究比较了手锉、Mtwo、Reciproc和Gentlefile旋转机器在根管治疗中的第一磨牙根管运输、对中能力和封闭质量。材料与方法:将80根初生磨牙根随机分为4组。对样本进行锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT),并使用手锉(1组)、Mtwo(2组)、Reciproc(3组)和绅士锉(4组)对根管进行测量。再次获得CBCT扫描,并在距离舌尖1,2,3mm以及距离口1mm处,评估管在颊舌和中远端方向的运输和定心能力。采用沸石(ZOE)水泥封堵根管。为了评估每组的封闭密度、空洞数量和下填充,我们获得了新的CBCT扫描。记录每颗牙齿的最大、最小和平均Hounsfield单位(HU)。采用单因素方差分析、Kruskal-Wallis检验和Tukey’s HSD检验对数据进行分析。结果:Mtwo在中远端距尖端2mm处的定心能力明显优于绅士锉(p值< 0.05)。与Reciproc相比,genfilile在离舌尖3 mm处的舌管运输明显增加(P0.05)。四组间最小胡、下充填和空洞数无差异(p= 0.791、p= 0.1和p= 0.548)。Reciproc的最大和平均HU显著较高,其次是Mtwo、Gentlefile和hand files (p< 0.05)。结论:与其他系统相比,绅士档案具有较高的移动性和较差的定心能力。recproc的闭孔密度最高,其次是Mtwo、Gentlefile和hand file。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars.

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars.

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars.

Comparison of Hand Files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile Rotary Systems Regarding Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Obturation Quality of Primary Molars.

Statement of the problem: Employing different instruments may have different impact on the outcome of root canal treatments. Deviation from the original canal path and defective root canal obturation may lead to pulpectomy treatment failure.

Purpose: This study compared the primary molar canal transportation, centering ability, and obturation quality of hand files, Mtwo, Reciproc, and Gentlefile rotating machines in root canal treatments.

Materials and method: In this in vitro experimental study, eighty primary molar roots were randomly assigned to four groups. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were provided for the samples, and hand files (group 1), Mtwo (group 2), Reciproc (group 3), and Gentlefile (group 4) were used to instrument the root canals. Once more, CBCT scans were acquired, and at 1, 2, and 3mm from the apex as well as 1 mm from the orifice, the canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated in buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. Zeolite (ZOE) cement was used to obturate every root canal. To evaluate the obturation density, number of voids, and underfilling in each group, new CBCT scans were obtained. For every tooth, the maximum, minimum, and average Hounsfield units (HU) were noted. One-way ANOVA, the Kruskal-Wallis test, and Tukey's HSD test were used to analyze the data.

Results: Mtwo exhibited considerably superior centering ability than Gentlefile at 2mm from the apex in the mesiodistal direction (p Value< 0.05). Gentlefile had significantly higher buccolingual canal transportation than Reciproc at 3 mm from the apex (P0.05). Minimum HU, underfilling, and void numbers did not differ amongst the four groups (p= 0.791, p= 0.1, and p= 0.548). Reciproc had substantially higher maximum and average HU, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files (p< 0.05).

Conclusion: When compared to other systems, Gentlefile showed higher transportation and less centering ability. Reciproc had the highest obturation density, followed by Mtwo, Gentlefile, and hand files.

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
CiteScore
0.50
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