Alfadley Abdulmohsen, Jamleh Ahmed
Department of Restorative and Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud bin Abdulaziz University for Health Sciences, King Abdullah International Medical Research Center, Ministry of National Guard Health Affairs, Riyadh, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dental Medicine, University of Sharjah, Sharjah, United Arab Emirates.
Eur J Dent. 2025 Feb;19(1):110-115. doi: 10.1055/s-0044-1786840. Epub 2024 Jul 16.
This study aimed to evaluate the shaping force generated with OneShape (OS) and HyFlex EDM (HEDM) systems designed for single file shaping, in comparison with ProTaper Next (PTN).
Maxillary premolar teeth received access cavity preparation and their canals were shaped with OS, HEDM, or PTN to size 25 according to manufacturer's instructions with consistent pressure on the files to give a gentle "in-and-out" movements of 2 mm amplitude. The canal shaping was completed with a total of three insertions. After each insertion, 1% NaOCl irrigation and recapitulation with K-file size 15 were performed. The vertical shaping force was measured using a force gauge (M5-20 Advanced Digital Force Gauge; Mark-10 Corporation, NY).
The shaping time was analyzed by using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and differences between the mean apical and coronal maximum force values were analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. The level of significance was set as 0.05.
The magnitude of the vertical forces increased with successive advancements of the instruments within the canal. During canal shaping procedures in all groups, the apical and coronal maximum force values of the OS and HEDM ranged from 2.5 to 7.2 N and 1.3 to 2.9 N, respectively. PTN generated the lowest maximum apical forces during the second and third insertions ( < 0.05). HEDM generated significantly less maximum coronal forces than both OS and PTN during the first insertion while the use of OS was associated with the highest amount of force values in the second and third insertions ( < 0.05). In terms of shaping time, no significant differences were detected among the three tested systems ( = 0.606).
The tested single file systems were associated with higher shaping forces in the apical direction that were significant in the second and third insertions.
本研究旨在评估与ProTaper Next（PTN）相比，专为单根管锉塑形设计的OneShape（OS）和HyFlex EDM（HEDM）系统产生的塑形力。
对上颌前磨牙进行开髓预备，根据制造商说明，使用OS、HEDM或PTN将根管塑形至25号，锉施加持续压力，进行幅度为2毫米的轻柔“进出”运动。根管塑形共进行三次插入完成。每次插入后，用1%次氯酸钠冲洗并用15号K锉进行疏通。使用测力计（M5-20高级数字测力计；Mark-10公司，纽约）测量垂直塑形力。
使用单因素方差分析（ANOVA）测试分析塑形时间，使用Kruskal-Wallis和Mann-Whitney U检验分析根尖和冠部最大力值的均值差异。显著性水平设定为0.05。
随着器械在根管内的连续推进，垂直力的大小增加。在所有组的根管塑形过程中，OS和HEDM的根尖和冠部最大力值分别为2.5至7.2牛和1.3至2.9牛。在第二次和第三次插入时，PTN产生的根尖最大力最低（<0.05）。在第一次插入时，HEDM产生的冠部最大力明显低于OS和PTN，而在第二次和第三次插入时，使用OS产生的力值最高（<0.05）。在塑形时间方面，三个测试系统之间未检测到显著差异（=0.606）。
测试的单根管锉系统在根尖方向产生较高的塑形力，在第二次和第三次插入时具有显著性。
