da Silva Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal, de Moura Sara Gomes, de Lima Carolina Oliveira, Barbosa Ana Flávia Almeida, Misael Waleska Florentino, Lacerda Mariane Floriano Lopes Santos, Sassone Luciana Moura
Department of Endodontics, State University of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University (UNIGRANRIO) School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil.
Restor Dent Endod. 2021 Feb 25;46(2):e16. doi: 10.5395/rde.2021.46.e16. eCollection 2021 May.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping ability of the TruShape and Reciproc Blue systems and the apical extrusion of debris after root canal instrumentation. The ProTaper Universal system was used as a reference for comparison.
Thirty-three mandibular premolars with a single canal were scanned using micro-computed tomography and were matched into 3 groups ( = 11) according to the instrumentation system: TruShape, Reciproc Blue and ProTaper Universal. The teeth were accessed and mounted in an apparatus with agarose gel, which simulated apical resistance provided by the periapical tissue and enabled the collection of apically extruded debris. During root canal preparation, 2.5% sodium hypochlorite was used as an irrigant. The samples were scanned again after instrumentation. The percentage of unprepared area, removed dentin, and volume of apically extruded debris were analyzed. The data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance and the Tukey test for multiple comparisons at a 5% significance level.
No significant differences in the percentage of unprepared area were observed among the systems ( > 0.05). ProTaper Universal presented a higher percentage of dentin removal than the TruShape and Reciproc Blue systems ( < 0.05). The systems produced similar volumes of apically extruded debris ( > 0.05).
All systems caused apically extruded debris, without any significant differences among them. TruShape, Reciproc Blue, and ProTaper Universal presented similar percentages of unprepared area after root canal instrumentation; however, ProTaper Universal was associated with higher dentin removal than the other systems.
本研究旨在评估TruShape和Reciproc Blue系统的根管预备能力以及根管预备后根尖碎屑的挤出情况。将ProTaper Universal系统作为对照进行比较。
选取33颗单根管下颌前磨牙，采用显微计算机断层扫描技术进行扫描，并根据预备系统分为3组（每组n = 11）：TruShape组、Reciproc Blue组和ProTaper Universal组。开髓后将牙齿固定于装有琼脂糖凝胶的装置中，该装置模拟根尖周组织提供的根尖阻力，并能收集根尖挤出的碎屑。根管预备过程中，使用2.5%的次氯酸钠作为冲洗液。预备后再次对样本进行扫描。分析未预备区域的百分比、去除的牙本质以及根尖挤出碎屑的体积。采用单因素方差分析和Tukey检验进行多重比较，显著性水平为5%。
各系统之间未预备区域的百分比无显著差异（P > 0.05）。ProTaper Universal系统去除的牙本质百分比高于TruShape和Reciproc Blue系统（P < 0.05）。各系统产生的根尖挤出碎屑体积相似（P > 0.05）。
所有系统均会导致根尖挤出碎屑，且各系统之间无显著差异。TruShape、Reciproc Blue和ProTaper Universal系统在根管预备后未预备区域的百分比相似；然而，ProTaper Universal系统去除的牙本质比其他系统更多。
