Suppr超能文献

使用锥形束计算机断层扫描评估 Protaper、Mtwo、WaveOne 和 Reciproc 根管预备器械的根管定位能力:一项研究。

Comparative Evaluation of Root Canal Centering Ability of ProTaper, Mtwo, WaveOne, and Reciproc Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: Study.

机构信息

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India, Phone: +91 9567370349, e-mail:

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Amrita School of Dentistry, Amrita Vishwa Vidyapeetham, Kochi, Kerala, India.

出版信息

J Contemp Dent Pract. 2022 Jun 1;23(6):589-592. Print 2022 Sep 23.

Abstract

AIM

To compare the centering ability of rotating (ProTaper and Mtwo) and reciprocating (WaveOne and Reciproc) file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Eighty extracted human mandibular molars with curvature within 15-45° were selected and randomly divided into four groups ( = 20): group I (ProTaper), group II (Mtwo), group III (WaveOne), and group IV (Reciproc). The selected teeth were arranged in a template, and pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation CBCT scans were taken using Kodak Carestream CS 9300 machine. The centering ability was measured in four planes namely, at furcation, 3 mm apical to furcation (coronal), 6 mm apical to furcation (middle), and 3 mm coronal to the apex (apical), wherein dentin thickness was measured from pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT scans and recorded for each canal (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual) separately and statistically analyzed.

RESULTS

Mtwo and Reciproc remained better centered followed by WaveOne and least by ProTaper in different-level comparisons. In the mesiodistal dimension (MD) at the 3 mm, 6 mm, and 3 mm apical level, Mtwo and Reciproc showed better centering, meanwhile, in the buccolingual dimension, only in the 3 mm apical level, Mtwo and Reciproc remain better centered. A significant difference was seen between the group and type of canal.

CONCLUSION

Mtwo and Reciproc showed better centered preparation than ProTaper and WaveOne. Significant differences were seen between the groups and types of canal.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Root canal instrumentation should maintain the original canal anatomy. The proper enlargement keeping in mind the remaining strength in the tooth structure is essentially decided by how the selected instrument is centered. The alloy used for instrument manufacture and its design (taper, cross-section, and tip) will influence the centered preparation. The type of instrument and the instrumentation techniques should be chosen based on root canal anatomy.

摘要

目的

使用锥形束计算机断层扫描(CBCT)比较旋转(ProTaper 和 Mtwo)和往复(WaveOne 和 Reciproc)锉系统的根管居中能力。

材料和方法

选择 80 颗具有 15-45°弯曲度的下颌磨牙,随机分为四组(每组 20 颗):I 组(ProTaper)、II 组(Mtwo)、III 组(WaveOne)和 IV 组(Reciproc)。将选定的牙齿排列在模板中,使用柯达 Carestream CS 9300 机器进行预扩锉和扩锉后 CBCT 扫描。在四个平面测量根管居中能力,即分叉处、分叉处 3mm 根尖(冠向)、分叉处 6mm 根尖(中间)和根尖 3mm 冠向(根尖),从预扩锉和扩锉后 CBCT 扫描中测量牙本质厚度,并分别记录每个根管(近中颊侧和近中舌侧)的牙本质厚度,并进行统计分析。

结果

在不同水平的比较中,Mtwo 和 Reciproc 保持更好的中心定位,其次是 WaveOne,而 ProTaper 则最差。在近远中尺寸(MD)的 3mm、6mm 和 3mm 根尖水平,Mtwo 和 Reciproc 显示出更好的中心定位,同时在颊舌尺寸中,只有在 3mm 根尖水平,Mtwo 和 Reciproc 保持更好的中心定位。在根管类型和根管类型之间存在显著差异。

结论

Mtwo 和 Reciproc 比 ProTaper 和 WaveOne 显示出更好的中心定位准备。在根管类型和根管类型之间存在显著差异。

临床意义

根管预备应保持原始根管解剖结构。在考虑到牙齿结构剩余强度的情况下,适当的扩大是由所选器械的中心定位决定的。器械制造所使用的合金及其设计(锥度、横截面和尖端)将影响中心定位预备。器械的类型和使用技术应根据根管解剖结构选择。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验