Central Interdisciplinary Ambulance in the School of Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.
Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):449-61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x. Epub 2011 Dec 22.
To compare shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two reciprocating single-file systems with Mtwo and ProTaper rotary instruments during the preparation of curved root canals in extracted teeth.
A total of 80 root canals with curvatures ranging between 25° and 39° were divided into four groups of 20 canals. Based on radiographs taken prior to instrumentation, the groups were balanced with respect to the angle and the radius of canal curvature. Canals were prepared to the following apical sizes: Mtwo: size 35 using the single-length technique; ProTaper: F3, instruments were used in a modified crown-down manner; Reciproc and WaveOne: size 25. Using pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs, straightening of the canal curvatures was determined with a computer image analysis program. Preparation time and instrument failures were also recorded. These data were analysed statistically using anova and Student-Newman-Keuls test. The amounts of debris and smear layer were quantified on the basis of a numerical evaluation scale and were analysed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test.
During preparation no file fractured. All instruments maintained the original canal curvature well with no significant differences between the different files (P = 0.382). Instrumentation with Reciproc was significantly faster than with all other instruments (P < 0.05), while WaveOne was significantly faster than Mtwo and ProTaper (P < 0.05). For debris removal, Mtwo and Reciproc instruments achieved significantly better results (P < 0.05) than the other instruments in the apical third of the canals. In the middle and coronal parts, no significant differences were obtained between Mtwo, Reciproc and WaveOne (P > 0.05), while ProTaper showed significantly more residual debris (P < 0.05). The results for remaining smear layer were similar and not significantly different for the different parts of the canals (P > 0.05).
Under the conditions of this study, all instruments maintained the original canal curvature well and were safe to use. The use of Mtwo and Reciproc instruments resulted in better canal cleanliness in the apical part compared with ProTaper and WaveOne.
比较 Mtwo 和 ProTaper 两种往复式单丝根管预备系统与 Reciproc 和 WaveOne 两种旋转镍钛锉在预备弯曲根管时的成形能力和清理效果。
共 80 个根管，弯曲角度在 25°至 39°之间，随机分为 4 组，每组 20 个根管。根据预备前的 X 线片，每组在根管弯曲角度和弯曲半径方面均进行了平衡。根管用以下根尖锉预备至相应的尺寸：Mtwo：使用单支锉技术预备至 35 号；ProTaper：使用 F3 锉，改良的逐步后退法预备；Reciproc 和 WaveOne：预备至 25 号。使用预备前后的 X 线片，通过计算机图像分析程序确定根管弯曲度的拉直情况。记录预备时间和器械折断情况。使用方差分析和 Student-Newman-Keuls 检验对这些数据进行统计学分析。根据数字评价量表对牙本质碎屑和玷污层的量进行量化，并使用 Kruskal-Wallis 检验进行统计学分析。
在预备过程中没有器械折断。所有器械都很好地保持了原始根管的弯曲度，不同器械之间没有显著差异（P = 0.382）。Reciproc 锉预备的速度明显快于其他所有器械（P < 0.05），而 WaveOne 锉预备的速度明显快于 Mtwo 和 ProTaper 锉（P < 0.05）。在去除牙本质碎屑方面，Mtwo 和 Reciproc 锉在根管的根尖三分之一处的效果明显优于其他器械（P < 0.05）。在根管的中、冠部，Mtwo、Reciproc 和 WaveOne 之间没有显著差异（P > 0.05），而 ProTaper 则显示出明显更多的残余牙本质碎屑（P < 0.05）。对于残留玷污层的结果，不同部位的根管之间相似，没有显著差异（P > 0.05）。
在本研究条件下，所有器械都很好地保持了原始根管的弯曲度，使用安全。与 ProTaper 和 WaveOne 相比，Mtwo 和 Reciproc 锉在根管的根尖部能更好地清洁根管。
