{"title":"模拟根管成形中的电机与操作者。","authors":"Kevin Hofpeter, Matthias Zehnder, Shengjile Deari","doi":"10.3389/fdmed.2025.1617425","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The impact of contemporary endodontic motors on shaping outcomes has not been weighed against that of the motor operators.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One motor (X-Smart Pro+) specifically developed for the reciprocating files that were used (Reciproc Blue R25) was compared to three cordless counterparts, two of which lacked a designated reciprocation mode. Standardized J-shaped canals in bovine incisor roots were instrumented by four different operators, who were residents with similar levels of education and clinical experience. One reciprocating file per simulated root canal was used. The root canal models were pre-warmed and kept in a vice at 37°C in a water bath. The operators were instructed to instrument two simulated canals per motor in a random sequence, applying three pecking motions and alternating with 3% NaOCl irrigation. Instrumentation time was measured. Pre- and postoperative images obtained using a digital microscope were superimposed to assess canal transportation. Parametric tests (two-way ANOVA) were applied to weigh the overall effects of the motor and operator on instrumentation time and canal transportation. The impact of the motor and operator on the number of unwound flutes was explored using likelihood ratio tests. The level of significance was set at 5% (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Operators had a highly significant (<i>P</i> < 0.001) impact on instrumentation time and file unwinding, while motors did not (<i>P</i> > 0.05). File unwinding was negatively correlated with instrumentation time (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There was no effect of either the motor or the operator on canal transportation (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Technological advancements in endodontic motors do not necessarily compensate for operator variability.</p>","PeriodicalId":73077,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in dental medicine","volume":"6 ","pages":"1617425"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12331665/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Motors vs. operators in simulated root canal shaping.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin Hofpeter, Matthias Zehnder, Shengjile Deari\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/fdmed.2025.1617425\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The impact of contemporary endodontic motors on shaping outcomes has not been weighed against that of the motor operators.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>One motor (X-Smart Pro+) specifically developed for the reciprocating files that were used (Reciproc Blue R25) was compared to three cordless counterparts, two of which lacked a designated reciprocation mode. Standardized J-shaped canals in bovine incisor roots were instrumented by four different operators, who were residents with similar levels of education and clinical experience. One reciprocating file per simulated root canal was used. The root canal models were pre-warmed and kept in a vice at 37°C in a water bath. The operators were instructed to instrument two simulated canals per motor in a random sequence, applying three pecking motions and alternating with 3% NaOCl irrigation. Instrumentation time was measured. Pre- and postoperative images obtained using a digital microscope were superimposed to assess canal transportation. Parametric tests (two-way ANOVA) were applied to weigh the overall effects of the motor and operator on instrumentation time and canal transportation. The impact of the motor and operator on the number of unwound flutes was explored using likelihood ratio tests. The level of significance was set at 5% (<i>P</i> < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Operators had a highly significant (<i>P</i> < 0.001) impact on instrumentation time and file unwinding, while motors did not (<i>P</i> > 0.05). File unwinding was negatively correlated with instrumentation time (<i>P</i> < 0.001). There was no effect of either the motor or the operator on canal transportation (<i>P</i> > 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Technological advancements in endodontic motors do not necessarily compensate for operator variability.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73077,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in dental medicine\",\"volume\":\"6 \",\"pages\":\"1617425\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12331665/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in dental medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1617425\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in dental medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/fdmed.2025.1617425","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
介绍:当代牙髓马达对整形结果的影响尚未与马达操作员的影响进行权衡。材料和方法:将一个专门为往复文件开发的电机(X-Smart Pro+) (Reciproc Blue R25)与三个无绳电机进行比较,其中两个没有指定的往复模式。标准化的牛门牙根j形管由四名不同的操作员进行,他们是具有相似教育水平和临床经验的居民。每个模拟根管使用一个往复锉。根管模型预热后置于虎钳中37℃水浴保存。操作人员被指示按随机顺序测量每个马达的两个模拟管道,进行三次啄食运动,并交替使用3%的NaOCl灌溉。测量仪器时间。使用数码显微镜获得的术前和术后图像叠加以评估运河运输。采用参数检验(双向方差分析)来衡量电机和操作员对仪器时间和运河运输的总体影响。利用似然比检验探讨了电机和操作人员对开卷槽数的影响。显著性水平设为5% (P)结果:操作者有高度显著性(P < 0.05)。文件展开与器械时间呈负相关(P < 0.05)。结论:牙髓马达的技术进步并不一定能弥补操作人员的变化。
Motors vs. operators in simulated root canal shaping.
Introduction: The impact of contemporary endodontic motors on shaping outcomes has not been weighed against that of the motor operators.
Materials and methods: One motor (X-Smart Pro+) specifically developed for the reciprocating files that were used (Reciproc Blue R25) was compared to three cordless counterparts, two of which lacked a designated reciprocation mode. Standardized J-shaped canals in bovine incisor roots were instrumented by four different operators, who were residents with similar levels of education and clinical experience. One reciprocating file per simulated root canal was used. The root canal models were pre-warmed and kept in a vice at 37°C in a water bath. The operators were instructed to instrument two simulated canals per motor in a random sequence, applying three pecking motions and alternating with 3% NaOCl irrigation. Instrumentation time was measured. Pre- and postoperative images obtained using a digital microscope were superimposed to assess canal transportation. Parametric tests (two-way ANOVA) were applied to weigh the overall effects of the motor and operator on instrumentation time and canal transportation. The impact of the motor and operator on the number of unwound flutes was explored using likelihood ratio tests. The level of significance was set at 5% (P < 0.05).
Results: Operators had a highly significant (P < 0.001) impact on instrumentation time and file unwinding, while motors did not (P > 0.05). File unwinding was negatively correlated with instrumentation time (P < 0.001). There was no effect of either the motor or the operator on canal transportation (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: Technological advancements in endodontic motors do not necessarily compensate for operator variability.