D M Yashas, R S Basavanna, Nm Dhanya Kumar, Aishwarya Arya, Poojitha Jain, Ishaan Adhaulia
{"title":"自调节锉、Protaper NEXT和Hyflex EDM内固定牙体抗折性的比较研究。","authors":"D M Yashas, R S Basavanna, Nm Dhanya Kumar, Aishwarya Arya, Poojitha Jain, Ishaan Adhaulia","doi":"10.4103/ccd.ccd_533_24","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The primary aim of endodontic treatment is to preserve the structural integrity of teeth while enhancing their resistance to fractures. Endodontically treated teeth are more susceptible to fractures due to the removal of tooth structure and radicular dentin. This study evaluates and compares the fracture resistance of teeth instrumented using three rotary file systems: self-adjusting file (SAF), ProTaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were randomly divided into four groups: Group I (control, uninstrumented), Group II (SAF), Group III (ProTaper NEXT), and Group IV (Hyflex EDM). Following instrumentation, root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer, except in the control group. Samples were embedded in acrylic resin, and fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and Tukey's <i>post hoc</i> tests to compare group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The control group exhibited the highest fracture resistance (560.46 ± 125.0 N). Among the instrumented groups, SAF demonstrated the greatest fracture resistance (537.8 ± 126.3 N), followed by Hyflex EDM (440.7 ± 210.3 N), whereas ProTaper NEXT exhibited the lowest (379.93 ± 130.0 N). Significant differences were noted between groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). SAF preserved dentinal integrity most effectively, whereas ProTaper NEXT induced more structural damage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SAF system, with its adaptive design and minimal dentin removal, was superior in preserving root strength. ProTaper NEXT, although efficient in shaping, increased fracture risk due to higher stress generation. Hyflex EDM offered intermediate outcomes, combining flexibility and reduced dentin damage.</p>","PeriodicalId":10632,"journal":{"name":"Contemporary Clinical Dentistry","volume":"16 2","pages":"111-116"},"PeriodicalIF":1.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12338483/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Teeth Instrumented by Self adjusting File, Protaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM: An <i>In vitro</i> Study.\",\"authors\":\"D M Yashas, R S Basavanna, Nm Dhanya Kumar, Aishwarya Arya, Poojitha Jain, Ishaan Adhaulia\",\"doi\":\"10.4103/ccd.ccd_533_24\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The primary aim of endodontic treatment is to preserve the structural integrity of teeth while enhancing their resistance to fractures. Endodontically treated teeth are more susceptible to fractures due to the removal of tooth structure and radicular dentin. This study evaluates and compares the fracture resistance of teeth instrumented using three rotary file systems: self-adjusting file (SAF), ProTaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM.</p><p><strong>Methodology: </strong>Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were randomly divided into four groups: Group I (control, uninstrumented), Group II (SAF), Group III (ProTaper NEXT), and Group IV (Hyflex EDM). Following instrumentation, root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer, except in the control group. Samples were embedded in acrylic resin, and fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and Tukey's <i>post hoc</i> tests to compare group differences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The control group exhibited the highest fracture resistance (560.46 ± 125.0 N). Among the instrumented groups, SAF demonstrated the greatest fracture resistance (537.8 ± 126.3 N), followed by Hyflex EDM (440.7 ± 210.3 N), whereas ProTaper NEXT exhibited the lowest (379.93 ± 130.0 N). Significant differences were noted between groups (<i>P</i> < 0.001). SAF preserved dentinal integrity most effectively, whereas ProTaper NEXT induced more structural damage.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The SAF system, with its adaptive design and minimal dentin removal, was superior in preserving root strength. ProTaper NEXT, although efficient in shaping, increased fracture risk due to higher stress generation. Hyflex EDM offered intermediate outcomes, combining flexibility and reduced dentin damage.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10632,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Contemporary Clinical Dentistry\",\"volume\":\"16 2\",\"pages\":\"111-116\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12338483/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Contemporary Clinical Dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_533_24\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/7/14 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Contemporary Clinical Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_533_24","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/7/14 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Teeth Instrumented by Self adjusting File, Protaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM: An In vitro Study.
Introduction: The primary aim of endodontic treatment is to preserve the structural integrity of teeth while enhancing their resistance to fractures. Endodontically treated teeth are more susceptible to fractures due to the removal of tooth structure and radicular dentin. This study evaluates and compares the fracture resistance of teeth instrumented using three rotary file systems: self-adjusting file (SAF), ProTaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM.
Methodology: Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were randomly divided into four groups: Group I (control, uninstrumented), Group II (SAF), Group III (ProTaper NEXT), and Group IV (Hyflex EDM). Following instrumentation, root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer, except in the control group. Samples were embedded in acrylic resin, and fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests to compare group differences.
Results: The control group exhibited the highest fracture resistance (560.46 ± 125.0 N). Among the instrumented groups, SAF demonstrated the greatest fracture resistance (537.8 ± 126.3 N), followed by Hyflex EDM (440.7 ± 210.3 N), whereas ProTaper NEXT exhibited the lowest (379.93 ± 130.0 N). Significant differences were noted between groups (P < 0.001). SAF preserved dentinal integrity most effectively, whereas ProTaper NEXT induced more structural damage.
Conclusion: The SAF system, with its adaptive design and minimal dentin removal, was superior in preserving root strength. ProTaper NEXT, although efficient in shaping, increased fracture risk due to higher stress generation. Hyflex EDM offered intermediate outcomes, combining flexibility and reduced dentin damage.
期刊介绍：
The journal Contemporary Clinical Dentistry (CCD) (Print ISSN: 0976-237X, E-ISSN:0976- 2361) is peer-reviewed journal published on behalf of Maharishi Markandeshwar University and issues are published quarterly in the last week of March, June, September and December. The Journal publishes Original research papers, clinical studies, case series strictly of clinical interest. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of Dentistry i.e. Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Dentofacial orthopedics and Orthodontics, Oral medicine and Radiology, Oral pathology, Oral surgery, Orodental diseases, Pediatric Dentistry, Periodontics, Clinical aspects of Public Health dentistry and Prosthodontics. Review articles are not accepted. Review, if published, will only be by invitation from eminent scholars and academicians of National and International repute in the field of Medical/Dental education.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
