Elemam Ranya F, Azul Ana Mano, Dias João, El Sahli Khaled, de Toledo Leonardo Renato
Restorative Dental Science Department, College of Dentistry, Gulf Medical University, Ajman P.O. Box 4184, United Arab Emirates.
Egas Moniz School of Health and Science, Monte da Caparica, 2829-511 Almada, Portugal.
Dent J (Basel). 2024 Oct 21;12(10):334. doi: 10.3390/dj12100334.
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: In this article, we present a literature review of methods used to measure the shaping ability of endodontic rotary files, including the selection of endodontic sample type (extracted teeth versus simulated blocks) and an imaging evaluation method. This review was conducted as background research to identify concerns that arise when designing research studies in this domain and propose how the field can plan more systematic studies going forward.
A literature search was conducted using PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and e B-on databases, including studies published in English from January 2010 to June 2024. Only studies that specified in vitro or ex vivo methods for evaluating the endodontic performance of NiTi rotary files on canal transportation and centering ability were considered.
A total of 86 studies met the inclusion criteria from an initial pool of 651. Of these, 67 studies used extracted teeth, while 20 utilized simulated root canals in resin blocks. For evaluation methods, 55 studies employed Micro-Computed Tomography and Cone-Beam Computed Tomography (MCT + CBCT), 30 used Double Digital Images/Radiographs/Photographs (DDIR + DDIP) with software analysis, 1 used both DDIR and MCT, 1 used high-precision nano-CT, and 1 used a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera.
The findings indicate that the MCT method and its advanced variations appear superior in many cases for evaluating the quality of root canal instrumentation due to their ability to provide detailed three-dimensional images. We also discuss the pros and cons of other evaluation methods, including CBCT and DDIR. Finally, we identify important factors to consider for optimizing future cross-study comparisons. This work highlights the importance of being familiar with shaping ability assessment methods as new instruments are introduced to the market.
背景/目的：在本文中，我们对用于测量根管旋转锉塑形能力的方法进行了文献综述，包括根管样本类型的选择（拔除牙与模拟块）和成像评估方法。本次综述作为背景研究进行，旨在识别该领域设计研究时出现的问题，并提出该领域未来如何规划更系统的研究。
使用PubMed、MEDLINE、Embase、ScienceDirect、Scopus和e B-on数据库进行文献检索，包括2010年1月至2024年6月以英文发表的研究。仅考虑指定了体外或离体方法来评估镍钛旋转锉在根管运输和定心能力方面根管性能的研究。
从最初的651项研究中，共有86项研究符合纳入标准。其中，67项研究使用了拔除牙，而20项研究使用了树脂块中的模拟根管。对于评估方法，55项研究采用了微型计算机断层扫描和锥形束计算机断层扫描（MCT + CBCT），30项研究使用了带有软件分析的双数字图像/射线照片/照片（DDIR + DDIP），1项研究同时使用了DDIR和MCT，1项研究使用了高精度纳米CT，1项研究使用了数码单反（DSLR）相机。
研究结果表明，MCT方法及其先进变体在评估根管预备质量方面在许多情况下似乎更具优势，因为它们能够提供详细的三维图像。我们还讨论了其他评估方法的优缺点，包括CBCT和DDIR。最后，我们确定了优化未来跨研究比较时需要考虑的重要因素。这项工作强调了在新器械推向市场时熟悉塑形能力评估方法的重要性。
