Almnea Raid Abdullah, Mohammad Al Ageel Albeaji Sadun, Ali Alelyani Ahmed, AlHarith Dalia, Saeed Alshahrani Abdulmajeed, Al Malwi Ahmed Abdullah, Alobaid Mohammed A, Al Moaleem Mohammed M
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, Najran University, Najran, Saudi Arabia.
Consultant Endodontics, Dental Center, Hafar al Batin, Saudi Arabia.
Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2024 Feb 16;16:1-9. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S452742. eCollection 2024.
This simulated study of 30 severely curved L-shaped root canals aimed to compare preparation time, aberrations, width measurements, and fractured files of three nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) files, namely, ProTaper, ProTaper Next (PTN), and WaveOne (WO).
Thirty simulated L-curved root canals of resin blocks were randomly divided into three groups. The canals were prepared to a tip size of 25 using ProTaper, PTN, and WO rotary file systems. Pre- and post-operative views for each sample were captured by a professional camera at a standardized distance and position. Blue India ink was injected into the pre-operative canals, and red India ink was injected into the post-operative canals to give a clear superimposition image. Five points were assessed through the halfway of the canal to the orifice (area between the beginning of curvature and apical end point). Preparation time, aberrations, width measurements, and fractured files were recorded and analyzed.
Mean preparation time was longest in ProTaper (4.89±0.68 minutes). PTN and WO were the fastest in preparing the canals (about 3 minutes). A statistically significant difference was found between WO and ProTaper & PTN and ProTaper (p=0.000), while the difference was non-significant (p > 0.05) between WO and PTN. Nine aberrations consisting of three zips, one ledge and one outer widening were related to ProTaper, while WO recorded a ledge and fractured file, but for PTN system, it verified an outer widening and ledge. Only one WO file fractured, with no deformation observed in the other instruments. No significance was recorded among the width measurements in the different levels.
ProTaper next achieved faster cutting than the ProTaper and WO file systems. PTN maintained the best apical termination position and produced the least canal aberration, followed by WO and ProTaper.
这项针对30个严重弯曲的L形根管的模拟研究旨在比较三种镍钛（Ni-Ti）锉，即ProTaper、ProTaper Next（PTN）和WaveOne（WO）的预备时间、偏差、宽度测量值和锉针折断情况。
将30个树脂块模拟的L形弯曲根管随机分为三组。使用ProTaper、PTN和WO旋转锉系统将根管预备至25号尖端尺寸。每个样本在标准化距离和位置由专业相机拍摄术前和术后图像。术前根管注入蓝色印度墨水，术后根管注入红色印度墨水以获得清晰的叠加图像。通过根管中部至管口（弯曲起始点与根尖终点之间的区域）评估五个点。记录并分析预备时间、偏差、宽度测量值和锉针折断情况。
ProTaper的平均预备时间最长（4.89±0.68分钟）。PTN和WO在根管预备中速度最快（约3分钟）。WO与ProTaper及PTN与ProTaper之间存在统计学显著差异（p = 0.000），而WO与PTN之间差异不显著（p > 0.05）。与ProTaper相关的有9处偏差，包括3处拉链状、1处台阶状和1处外侧增宽，而WO记录有1处台阶状和1根锉针折断，但对于PTN系统，发现有1处外侧增宽和1处台阶状。仅1根WO锉针折断，其他器械未观察到变形。不同水平的宽度测量值之间无显著差异。
ProTaper Next比ProTaper和WO锉系统切割速度更快。PTN保持了最佳的根尖终止位置，产生的根管偏差最小，其次是WO和ProTaper。
