Department of Integrated Clinical Procedures, School of Dentistry, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, McKay Orthopaedic Research Laboratory, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA;Department of Medicine, Center for Translational Medicine, Sidney Kimmel Medical College, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Eur Endod J. 2021 Dec;6(3):271-277. doi: 10.14744/eej.2021.44153.
To compare the shaping ability of the XP-endo Shaper (XPS) system to the ProTaper Next (PTN) system in oval-shaped distal root canals.
From 12 mandibular molars, distal roots with moderately curved single oval canals were randomly assorted to be instrumented with XPS (experimental group) or PTN (control group) and then scanned using micro-computed tomography [Scan 1]. The root canals of the XPS samples were prepared following the manufacturer's instructions using 15 insertions (XPS15) and rescanned [Scan 2]. An additional 10 insertions to the working length were applied, totalling 25 insertions (XPS25), and the roots were rescanned again [Scan 3]. PTN samples were prepared up to the X3 instrument (PTNX3) and rescanned [Scan 2]. The dentine removed and the unprepared areas were assessed. Data were analysed using a t-test with significance at α=0.05.
XPS25 was associated with a significantly greater dentine removal than XPS15 over the entire root canal length and in all three-thirds of the root canal (P<0.05). XPS25 significantly removed more dentine than PTNX3 in only the coronal third (P<0.05). XPS25 was also associated with a significantly smaller percentage of unprepared areas than XPS15 overall and in the coronal third (P<0.05). PTNX3 was associated with a significantly larger percentage of unprepared areas than XPS15 and XPS25 overall and in the coronal and middle thirds (P<0.05).
Ten additional movements with XPS significantly improved instrumentation capacity, reducing the percentage of untouched surface areas but also removing more dentine.
比较 XP-endo Shaper(XPS)系统和 ProTaper Next(PTN)系统在下颌磨牙远中弯曲单椭圆形根管中的成形能力。
从 12 颗下颌磨牙中,随机选择具有中度弯曲的单椭圆形远中根管的牙齿,用 XPS(实验组)或 PTN(对照组)进行器械预备,然后用微计算机断层扫描[扫描 1]进行扫描。XPS 样本的根管按照制造商的说明,用 15 次插入(XPS15)进行预备,并再次扫描[扫描 2]。再向工作长度增加 10 次插入,共 25 次插入(XPS25),然后再次扫描根[扫描 3]。PTN 样本预备到 X3 器械(PTNX3)并再次扫描[扫描 2]。评估去除的牙本质和未预备区域。使用 t 检验分析数据,显著性水平为 α=0.05。
与 XPS15 相比,XPS25 在整个根管长度和所有三个根管三分之一的区域都显著去除了更多的牙本质(P<0.05)。XPS25 仅在冠部三分之一处显著去除了比 PTNX3 更多的牙本质(P<0.05)。与 XPS15 相比,XPS25 在整个根管和冠部三分之一处的未预备区域百分比也显著较小(P<0.05)。PTNX3 在整个根管和冠部及中部三分之一处的未预备区域百分比显著大于 XPS15 和 XPS25(P<0.05)。
XPS 增加 10 次额外的运动显著提高了器械预备能力,减少了未触及表面区域的百分比,但也去除了更多的牙本质。