School of Dental Medicine, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
Department of Quality, National Laboratory for Length, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia.
J Endod. 2021 Mar;47(3):477-484. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.11.003. Epub 2020 Nov 18.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the transportation and centering ability of 5 different rotary and reciprocating file systems with different metallurgical properties and surface treatments in curved root canals.
Fifty mesiobuccal round canals of upper molars with a curvature of 25°-40° were assigned to 5 experimental groups (n = 12) according to the instrumentation system used: ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA), Reciproc Blue (RCB [VDW, Munich, Germany]), Reciproc (VDW), TruNatomy (TRN [Dentsply Sirona]), and XP-endo Shaper (FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland). During instrumentation, 5 mL 2.5% sodium hypochlorite was used in each root canal. The final irrigation protocol included 15% EDTA followed by sodium hypochlorite irrigation. The micro-computed tomographic scanning of the samples was performed before and after instrumentation to analyze the transportation and centering ability at 3 canal levels. The results were analyzed with the 1-way analysis of variance test with the corresponding post hoc test.
Overall, RCB caused significantly more canal transportation compared with the other techniques (P < .05). There were no significant differences between the other techniques (P > .05). ProTaper Next had a significantly better ability to stay within the central axis of the root canal compared with the Reciproc and RCB techniques (P = .046 and P = .017, respectively). In the apical third, all techniques caused similar apical transportation and centering ability (P > .05). In the middle and cervical parts of the canal, the RCB caused significantly greater canal transportation than the other techniques (P < .05).
Under the limitations of this study, all tested techniques had similar transportation and centering abilities in the apical part of the canal. However, the overall results and those in the middle and coronal parts of the canal indicated that reciprocating instruments resulted in more canal transportation and less centered preparations.
本研究旨在评估 5 种不同冶金性能和表面处理的旋转和往复锉系统在弯曲根管中的输送和中心定位能力。
根据使用的仪器系统，将 50 个上颌磨牙的近颊管（MB）（曲率 25°-40°）分为 5 个实验组（n = 12）：ProTaper Next（登士柏西诺德，约克，PA）、Reciproc Blue（RCB [VDW，慕尼黑，德国]）、Reciproc（VDW）、TruNatomy（TRN [登士柏西诺德]）和 XP-endo Shaper（菲森，拉绍德封，瑞士）。在器械操作过程中，每个根管内使用 5 mL 2.5%次氯酸钠。最后的冲洗方案包括 15% EDTA 后用次氯酸钠冲洗。在器械操作前后对样本进行微计算机断层扫描，以分析 3 个根管水平的输送和中心定位能力。采用单因素方差分析检验，并用相应的事后检验进行分析。
总体而言，RCB 与其他技术相比，明显导致更多的根管输送（P <.05）。其他技术之间没有显著差异（P >.05）。与 Reciproc 和 RCB 技术相比，ProTaper Next 具有更好的保持根管中心轴内的能力（P =.046 和 P =.017）。在根尖 3 区，所有技术导致的根尖输送和中心定位能力相似（P >.05）。在根管的中颈部分，RCB 导致的根管输送明显大于其他技术（P <.05）。
在本研究的限制范围内，所有测试技术在根管根尖部分都具有相似的输送和中心定位能力。然而，整体结果和根管中颈部分的结果表明，往复锉系统导致更多的根管输送和更少的中心预备。
