Stenman E, Spangberg L S
Department of Dental Materials and Technology, University of Umea, Sweden.
J Endod. 1990 Aug;16(8):375-82. doi: 10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81909-6.
Methods for the objective evaluation of the machining property of endodontic files were described earlier. These methods were used in this investigation to assess the characteristics of machining of 7 different brands of K files and 10 brands of Hedstrom files. The results show that there are large variations in amounts of material removed by the files. These variations are large between brands of instruments as well as between files of the same brand. Thus, among the 510 files evaluated, the file with the highest machining quality was more than 40 times as effective as the least effective instrument. The highest values among K files were obtained with files manufactured by Maillefer followed by Antaeos, Healthco, JS Dental, Brasseler, and Miltex. Among the Hedstrom files, the most efficient brands were Antaeos and Zipperer followed by Healthco, Hygenic, JS Dental, Miltex, Maillefer, Union Broach, and the least efficient Brasseler. The files did not wear noticeably during these testing procedures. These results clearly indicate that the provider needs more information from the manufacturer in regard to machining and cutting in order to intelligently select instruments. It is suggested that procedures be agreed upon to evaluate machining and cutting of root canal files in order to provide the endodontist with better information about instruments.
早期已描述了客观评估根管锉加工性能的方法。本研究采用这些方法来评估7个不同品牌的K锉和10个品牌的H锉的加工特性。结果表明，锉去除的材料量存在很大差异。这些差异在不同品牌的器械之间以及同一品牌的锉之间都很大。因此，在评估的510支锉中，加工质量最高的锉比效率最低的器械有效40倍以上。K锉中，Maillefer生产的锉获得的数值最高，其次是Antaeos、Healthco、JS Dental、Brasseler和Miltex。在H锉中，最有效的品牌是Antaeos和Zipperer，其次是Healthco、Hygenic、JS Dental、Miltex、Maillefer、Union Broach，效率最低的是Brasseler。在这些测试过程中，锉没有明显磨损。这些结果清楚地表明，为了明智地选择器械，供应商需要从制造商那里获得更多关于加工和切割的信息。建议商定评估根管锉加工和切割的程序，以便为牙髓病医生提供关于器械的更好信息。
