Troiano Giuseppe, Dioguardi Mario, Cocco Armando, Giuliani Michele, Fabiani Cristiano, D'Alessandro Alfonso, Ciavarella Domenico, Lo Muzio Lorenzo
Department of Clinical and Experimental Medicine, Foggia University, Foggia, Italy.
ScientificWorldJournal. 2016;2016:1606013. doi: 10.1155/2016/1606013. Epub 2016 Dec 8.
. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shaping and centering ability of ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and WaveOne Classic systems (Dentsply Maillefer) in simulated root canals. . Forty J-shaped canals in resin blocks were assigned to two groups ( = 20 for each group). Photographic method was used to record pre- and postinstrumentation images. After superimposition, centering and shaping ability were recorded at 9 different levels from the apex using the software Autocad 2013 (Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, USA). . Shaping procedures with ProTaper Next resulted in a lower amount of resin removed at each reference point level. In addition, the pattern of centering ability improved after the use of ProTaper Next in 8 of 9 measurement points. . Within the limitations of this study, shaping procedures with ProTaper Next instruments demonstrated a lower amount of resin removed and a better centering ability than WaveOne Classic system.
本研究的目的是评估和比较ProTaper Next(PTN;登士柏迈福,瑞士巴拉格)和WaveOne Classic系统(登士柏迈福)在模拟根管中的根管预备和根管居中能力。在树脂块中制备40个J形根管,并分为两组(每组n = 20)。采用摄影方法记录预备前和预备后的图像。叠加后,使用Autocad 2013软件(美国圣拉斐尔欧特克公司)从根尖开始在9个不同水平记录根管居中及预备能力。使用ProTaper Next进行根管预备时,在每个参考点水平去除的树脂量较少。此外,在9个测量点中的8个点,使用ProTaper Next后根管居中能力模式有所改善。在本研究的局限性内,与WaveOne Classic系统相比,使用ProTaper Next器械进行根管预备时去除的树脂量更少,根管居中能力更好。