Ercoli Carlo, Rotella Mario, Funkenbusch Paul D, Russell Scott, Feng Changyong
Division of Prosthodontics, Eastman Dental Center, Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Rochester, 625 Elmwood AveRochester, NY 14620, USA.
J Prosthet Dent. 2009 May;101(5):319-31. doi: 10.1016/S0022-3913(09)60064-0.
The cutting behavior of dental rotary cutting instruments is influenced by the handpiece used. While the turbine handpiece has been extensively tested in previous studies, limited published information exists on the use of rotary cutting instruments with the electric handpiece system and on possible interactions between rotary cutting instruments and handpiece type.
The purpose of this study was to examine the cutting performance of a wide selection of rotary cutting instruments tested with the electric handpiece and compare the results with those of the air-turbine handpiece (Part I), identifying possible interactions between handpiece type and rotary cutting instruments.
Ten groups of rotary cutting instruments (n=30) designed for tooth preparation were selected: 9 diamond (7 multi-use, 2 disposable) and 1 carbide. Macor blocks (n=75) were used as a substrate, and 4 cuts were made on each specimen, using a new rotary cutting instrument each time, for a total of 300 cuts. The cuts were performed with an electric handpiece (Intramatic Lux K200), with the same methods used in the Part I study. To qualitatively evaluate the rotary cutting instrument surface characteristics, 1 specimen from each group was examined 3 times with a scanning electron microscope (SEM): before use, then after use, but before being cleaned and sterilized, and finally, after ultrasonic cleaning. To compare rotary cutting instrument performance between the turbine and electric handpieces, the data were analyzed using 2-way ANOVA to study the main effects of the group of rotary cutting instruments, handpieces, and their interaction. For analysis of the significant main effect, 1-way ANOVA and Tukey's Studentized Range test were used (alpha=.05).
Compared to the baseline temperature, all rotary cutting instruments showed a reduction of the temperature in the simulated pulp chamber when tested with the electric handpiece. The Great White Ultra (carbide bur) showed the highest rate of advancement (0.17 mm/s) and lowest applied load (108.35 g). Considering all rotary cutting instruments as a single group, the electric handpiece showed mean lower temperature (26.68 degrees C), higher rate of advancement (0.12 mm/s), and higher load (124.53 g) than the air-turbine handpiece (28.37 degrees C, 0.11 mm/s, and 121.7 g, respectively). Considering each single group of rotary cutting instruments, significant differences were found for the electric or air-turbine handpiece.
The tested carbide bur showed greater cutting efficiency than the tested diamond rotary cutting instruments when used with the electric handpiece. The electric handpiece showed a higher cutting efficiency than the turbine, especially when used with the carbide bur, probably due to its greater torque.
牙科旋转切割器械的切割行为受所使用的手机影响。虽然涡轮手机在以往研究中已得到广泛测试,但关于使用电动手机系统的旋转切割器械以及旋转切割器械与手机类型之间可能存在的相互作用,公开信息有限。
本研究的目的是检验多种使用电动手机测试的旋转切割器械的切割性能,并将结果与空气涡轮手机的结果(第一部分)进行比较,以确定手机类型与旋转切割器械之间可能存在的相互作用。
选择十组用于牙齿预备的旋转切割器械(n = 30):9种金刚石器械(7种多用型,2种一次性)和1种硬质合金器械。使用Macor块(n = 75)作为基底,每次使用新的旋转切割器械在每个标本上进行4次切割,共进行300次切割。切割使用电动手机(Intramatic Lux K200)进行,采用与第一部分研究相同的方法。为了定性评估旋转切割器械的表面特征,每组选取1个标本,使用扫描电子显微镜(SEM)进行3次检查:使用前、使用后但未清洁和消毒前以及最后超声清洁后。为了比较涡轮手机和电动手机之间旋转切割器械的性能,使用双向方差分析对数据进行分析,以研究旋转切割器械组、手机及其相互作用的主要影响。对于显著主要影响的分析,使用单向方差分析和Tukey's Studentized Range检验(α = 0.05)。
与基线温度相比,所有旋转切割器械在使用电动手机测试时,模拟牙髓腔内的温度均降低。Great White Ultra(硬质合金车针)显示出最高的前进速度(0.17 mm/s)和最低的施加负载(108.35 g)。将所有旋转切割器械视为一个单一组时,电动手机显示出平均较低的温度(26.68℃)、较高的前进速度(0.12 mm/s)和较高的负载(124.53 g),而空气涡轮手机分别为28.37℃、0.11 mm/s和121.7 g。考虑每组单一的旋转切割器械时,电动或空气涡轮手机存在显著差异。
当与电动手机一起使用时,测试的硬质合金车针显示出比测试的金刚石旋转切割器械更高的切割效率。电动手机显示出比涡轮手机更高的切割效率,特别是在与硬质合金车针一起使用时,这可能是由于其更大的扭矩。