Alovisi M, Cemenasco A, Mancini L, Paolino D, Scotti N, Bianchi C C, Pasqualini D
Department of Surgical Sciences, Dental School, Endodontics, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Department of Radiodiagnostics, University of Turin, Turin, Italy.
Int Endod J. 2017 Apr;50(4):387-397. doi: 10.1111/iej.12628. Epub 2016 Apr 15.
To evaluate the ability of ProGlider instruments, PathFiles and K-files to maintain canal anatomy during glide path preparation using X-ray computed micro-tomography (micro-CT).
Forty-five extracted maxillary first permanent molars were selected. Mesio-buccal canals were randomly assigned (n = 15) to manual K-file, PathFile or ProGlider groups for glide path preparation. Irrigation was achieved with 5% NaOCl and 10% EDTA. After glide path preparation, each canal was shaped with ProTaper Next X1 and X2 to working length. Specimens were scanned (isotropic voxel size 9.1 μm) for matching volumes and surface areas and post-treatment analyses. Canal volume, surface area, centroid shift, canal geometry variation through ratio of diameter ratios and ratio of cross-sectional areas were assessed in the apical and coronal levels and at the point of maximum canal curvature. One-way factorial anovas were used to evaluate the significance of instrument in the various canal regions.
Post-glide path analysis revealed that instrument factor was significant at the apical level for both the ratio of diameter ratios and the ratio of cross-sectional areas (P < 0.001), with an improved maintenance of root canal geometry by ProGlider and PathFile. At the coronal level and point of maximum canal curvature, ProGlider demonstrated a tendency to pre-flare the root canal compared with K-file and PathFile. PathFile and ProGlider demonstrated a significantly lower centroid shift compared with K-file at the apical level (P = 0.023). Post-shaping analysis demonstrated a more centred preparation of ProGlider, compared with PathFile and K-files, with no significant differences for other parameters.
Use of ProGlider instruments led to less canal transportation than PathFiles and K-files.
使用X射线计算机显微断层扫描(显微CT)评估ProGlider器械、PathFiles和K锉在滑行通道预备过程中保持根管解剖结构的能力。
选取45颗拔除的上颌第一恒磨牙。近中颊根管随机分为手动K锉、PathFile或ProGlider组(n = 15)进行滑行通道预备。使用5%次氯酸钠和10%乙二胺四乙酸进行冲洗。滑行通道预备后,每个根管使用ProTaper Next X1和X2预备至工作长度。对标本进行扫描(各向同性体素大小9.1μm)以匹配体积和表面积并进行处理后分析。在根尖和冠方水平以及根管最大弯曲点评估根管体积、表面积、质心偏移、通过直径比和横截面积比评估的根管几何形状变化。使用单因素方差分析评估器械在不同根管区域的显著性。
滑行通道预备后分析显示,对于直径比和横截面积比,器械因素在根尖水平具有显著性(P < 0.001),ProGlider和PathFile能更好地保持根管几何形状。在冠方水平和根管最大弯曲点,与K锉和PathFile相比,ProGlider显示出使根管预扩的趋势。在根尖水平,PathFile和ProGlider的质心偏移显著低于K锉(P = 0.023)。预备后分析显示,与PathFile和K锉相比,ProGlider的预备更居中,其他参数无显著差异。
与PathFiles和K锉相比,使用ProGlider器械导致的根管偏移更少。