Gambarini Gianluca, Galli Massimo, Seracchiani Marco, Di Nardo Dario, Versiani Marco A, Piasecki Lucila, Testarelli Luca
Department of Oral and Maxillo-Facial Sciences, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Eur J Dent. 2019 Oct;13(4):556-562. doi: 10.1055/s-0039-1698369. Epub 2019 Dec 31.
This study evaluated the operative torque and preparation time of ProTaper NEXT (Dentsply Maillefer; Ballaigues, Switzerland) and EdgeFile X7 (EdgeEndo; Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States) rotary systems during root canal preparation of maxillary premolars.
Ten double-rooted maxillary premolars with independent canals were selected. Each canal in each tooth was prepared with one of the rotary systems ( = 10), ProTaper NEXT or EdgeFile X7. The instruments were rotated at 300 rpm with maximum torque set at 2 N.cm using an electric motor (KaVo; Biberach, Germany) that automatically recorded torque values at every 1/10th of a second (ds).
Operative torque (N.cm) and preparation time (s) of the first shaping instrument (size 17/.04) of both rotary systems were recorded and statistically compared using the Mann-Whiney test with a significance level set at 5%.
No instrument exhibited flute deformation or underwent intracanal failure. No differences were found between the instruments regarding the maximum (peak) torque values ( > 0.05). EdgeFile X7 17/.04 required significantly less preparation time (3.75 seconds interquartile range [IQR]: 3.2-9.0) than ProTaper NEXT X1 (15.45 seconds IQR: 8.35-21.1) ( < 0.05). The median operative torque values of ProTaper NEXT X1 (0.26 N.cm; IQR: 0.18-0.49) were significantly higher compared with EdgeFile X7 17/.04 (0.09 N.cm; IQR: 0.05-0.17) ( < 0.05).
Although no difference was found between the median peak torque values of ProTaper NEXT X1 and EdgeFile X7 17/.04 instruments, the operative torque and instrumentation time results were impacted by their different designs and alloys during clinical preparation of root canals.
本研究评估了ProTaper NEXT（登士柏迈丽菲；瑞士拜莱格）和EdgeFile X7（EdgeEndo；美国新墨西哥州阿尔伯克基）旋转系统在上颌前磨牙根管预备过程中的操作扭矩和预备时间。
选取10颗具有独立根管的双根上颌前磨牙。每颗牙齿的每个根管使用一种旋转系统（n = 10）进行预备，即ProTaper NEXT或EdgeFile X7。使用一台电动马达（卡瓦；德国比伯拉赫）以300 rpm的转速旋转器械，最大扭矩设定为2 N.cm，该电动马达每1/10秒（ds）自动记录扭矩值。
记录两种旋转系统的第一支成形器械（17/.04号）的操作扭矩（N.cm）和预备时间（s），并使用Mann-Whiney检验进行统计学比较，显著性水平设定为5%。
没有器械出现锉纹变形或在根管内发生折断。两种器械在最大（峰值）扭矩值方面没有差异（P > 0.05）。EdgeFile X7 17/.04所需的预备时间显著少于ProTaper NEXT X1（四分位间距[IQR]：3.2 - 9.0秒，为3.75秒）（P < 0.05）。ProTaper NEXT X1的中位操作扭矩值（0.26 N.cm；IQR：0.18 - 0.49）显著高于EdgeFile X7 17/.04（0.09 N.cm；IQR：0.05 - 0.17）（P < 0.05）。
尽管ProTaper NEXT X1和EdgeFile X7 17/.04器械的中位峰值扭矩值没有差异，但在根管临床预备过程中，它们不同的设计和合金对操作扭矩和预备时间结果产生了影响。
