CPO SL Mandic Brasiliense Dental School, Brasília, DF, Brazil.
J Endod. 2010 Jul;36(7):1179-82. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.033. Epub 2010 Mar 6.
The aim of this study was to compare the increase of the root canal area after instrumentation with EndoSequence or ProTaper rotary systems.
Twenty-two mesial root canals from mandibular molars were instrumented. Teeth were mounted on a base, numbered, and divided into 2 groups; teeth from 1-11 (PT group) were instrumented by using the ProTaper system, and teeth from 12-22 (ES group) were instrumented by using the EndoSequence system. Cone beam computed tomography was performed on all teeth before and after instrumentation. Measurements at 3, 5, and 7 mm as well as differences in instrument performance were statistically compared by the Student t test at 5% significance level.
Both systems increased significantly the root canal area (P < .05) at all levels. Comparison between the rotary systems showed significantly greater increase (P < .05) for EndoSequence at 3 mm, with no statistically significant difference (P < .05) at the other levels.
Both rotary systems increased significantly the root canal area.
本研究旨在比较 EndoSequence 和 ProTaper 根管预备系统预备后根管面积的增加量。
对 22 颗下颌磨牙的近中根管进行了预备。将牙齿安装在底座上，编号并分为 2 组；1-11 号牙（PT 组）采用 ProTaper 系统进行预备，12-22 号牙（ES 组）采用 EndoSequence 系统进行预备。在预备前后对所有牙齿均进行锥形束 CT 检查。通过学生 t 检验在 5%的显著性水平上对预备前后的根管面积（3、5 和 7mm 处）以及器械性能的差异进行了统计学比较。
两种系统均显著增加了根管面积（P<.05）。旋转系统之间的比较显示，在 3mm 处 EndoSequence 系统的增加量显著更大（P<.05），而在其他水平处没有统计学上的显著差异（P<.05）。
两种旋转系统均显著增加了根管面积。
