Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 2 de 2
Filter
Add filters








Language
Year range
1.
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-751038

ABSTRACT

Objective @#To compare the shaping ability of 3 different nickel (Ni)-titanium (Ti) systems in simulated root canals in resin and to provide a reference for clinicians.@*Methods@#Forty-eight resin blocks were prepared using the F360 (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) (Group 1), F6 SkyTaper (20/06) (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) (Group 2), F6 SkyTaper (25/06) (Komet, Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) (Group 3) and Reciproc R25 systems (VDW, Munich, Germany) (Group 4) (n=12 canals/group). The images taken before and after preparation were superimposed and analyzed by Adobe Photoshop v7.0. The amount of resin removed by each system was measured, and the centering ability was assessed. The data were statistically analyzed using SPSS 20.0.@*Results @#At the 1 mm point, the transportation in Group 4 [(0.10 ± 0.03) mm] was significantly greater than that in Groups 2 [(0.05 ± 0.03) mm] and 3 [(0.05 ± 0.03) mm] (P < 0.05). At the 8 mm and 9 mm points, the transportation values in Group 4 [(0.12 ± 0.06) mm and (0.13 ± 0.05) mm] were significantly higher than those in Groups 2 [(0.05 ± 0.05) mm and (0.05 ± 0.05) mm] and 3 [(0.05 ± 0.04) mm and (0.06 ± 0.05) mm] (P < 0.05). At the 10 mm point, the transportation was significantly greater in Group 4 [(0.13 ± 0.06) mm] than in Group 2 [(0.06 ± 0.06) mm].@*Conclusion@#F6 SkyTaper exhibits better centering ability than Reciproc.

2.
Article in Chinese | WPRIM | ID: wpr-750987

ABSTRACT

Objective @#To compare the removal efficiency and the amounts of apically extruded debris using Twisted File (TF), Twisted File Adaptive (TFA), ProTaper, and ProTaper Next combined with ultrasonic irrigation and to provide an experimental basis for the selection of root canal instrumentation in the clinic.@*Methods@#Forty mandibular premolars were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=10 teeth per group). The canals were cut using a Twisted File, Twisted File Adaptive, ProTaper, or ProTaper Next nickel-titanium instrument. The canals were irrigated with ultrasonic irrigation. The apically extruded debris were collected in preweighted Eppendorf tubes. The amount of dental tissue removed and extruded debris were assessed with an electronic balance.@*Results @#The amount of tooth tissue removed in groups A, B, C and D was 20.5 ± 2.0 mg, 17.8 ± 4.2 mg, 20.8 ± 3.9 mg and 16.5 ± 2.2 mg, respectively. Combined with ultrasonic irrigation, the Twisted File and ProTaper had a better removal efficiency than the ProTaper Next(P < 0.05). There was no significant difference in the amount of extruded debris (χ2=4.057, P=0.255) among four groups.@*Conclusion@#The Twisted File and ProTaper had a better removal efficiency than the ProTaper Next combined with ultrasonic irrigation. There was no significant difference in the amount of extruded debris using four Nickel-titanium instruments combined with ultrasonic irrigation.

SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL