Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
[Comparison of the shaping ability of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in the preparation of simulated curved root canals].
Qiu, Ning; Wang, Chu-yu; Liu, Yu-fei; Yu, Xiao-qing; Xue, Ming.
Afiliação
  • Qiu N; Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China. E-mail:531354905@qq.com.
  • Wang CY; Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China.
  • Liu YF; Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China.
  • Yu XQ; Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China.
  • Xue M; Department of Endodontics, School of Stomatology, China Medical University. Shenyang 110002, Liaoning Province, China.
Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue ; 25(2): 191-4, 2016 Apr.
Article em Zh | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27329883
ABSTRACT

PURPOSE:

To compare the shaping ability of three rotary Ni-Ti instruments in simulated root canals.

METHODS:

A total of 30 simulated resin blocks were divided randomly into 3 groups ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next and TF Adaptive. Each group consisted of 10 root canals. The preparation time and changes in canal curvature were measured. Pre- and post-instrumentation photograghs were taken by precise camera and superimposed through Photoshop. The material removed from the inner and outer canal walls at 9 points beginning at 0 mm from the foramen were measured with Image Pro Plus. Centering ability was determined accordingly. The data was analyzed with SPSS13.0 software package.

RESULTS:

During root canal preparation, no instruments fractured. ProTaper Next was much faster than ProTaper Universal(P<0.05). At the apical curvature, transportation was the least with TF Adaptive, followed by Protaper Next (P<0.05). There were no significant differences in 3 groups with respect to coronal curvature transportation (P>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS:

Under the conditions of this study, ProTaper Next was the most efficient instrument. TF Adaptive and Protaper Next showed better shaping ability. In general, all the instruments respected original canal curvature well and were safe to be used.
Assuntos
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Titânio / Preparo de Canal Radicular / Instrumentos Odontológicos / Cavidade Pulpar / Níquel Limite: Humans Idioma: Zh Revista: Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue Assunto da revista: ODONTOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: China
Buscar no Google
Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Titânio / Preparo de Canal Radicular / Instrumentos Odontológicos / Cavidade Pulpar / Níquel Limite: Humans Idioma: Zh Revista: Shanghai Kou Qiang Yi Xue Assunto da revista: ODONTOLOGIA Ano de publicação: 2016 Tipo de documento: Article País de afiliação: China