RESUMEN
This in vitro study aims to assess the cyclic fatigue resistance of the Protaper Ultimate (PTU) files compared to the Protaper Gold (PTG) and the M3 UDG (M3) files using various motion kinematics in simulated canals. As far as the authors are aware, no study has previously compared the three file systems before this current investigation. Therefore, closing this information gap is the goal of the current research. Methods: A total of (60 new endodontic files were randomly divided into 6 groups (10 files per group); groups 1, 3, and 5 used continuous rotation (CR), while groups 2, 4, and 6 used forward reciprocating motion (FRM). A manufactured stainless-steel artificial canal was used to perform the cyclic fatigue testing. The results were analyzed using Student's t-test and two-way ANOVA. All pairwise comparisons revealed statistically significant differences in the time to failure (TTF) for every study group (p < 0.001), with the exception of the PTG and M3 files, which performed similarly using both CR and FRM. Conclusions: The PTU files performed better than the PTG and M3 files in terms of the TTF and number of cycles to failure (NCF) using both CR and FRM.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Abfraction lesions are manifested as damage to hard tissues in the cervical area of dental crowns. The study aimed to assess the direct restoration of abfraction lesions according to the modified United States Public Health Service (USPHS) criteria for 24 months. The restorations were accomplished with Fuji Bulk-GC, Omnichroma Flow-Tokuyama, and Beautifil® II-Shofu dental materials, and the therapy was or was not associated with wearing thermoformed mouthguards. METHODS: From the 53 selected and analyzed patients (n = 53), 28 patients (with restorations of abfraction lesions) belonged to the 1st group and 25 patients (with 105 restorations, who also wore mouthguards) belonged to the 2nd group. Blind determination assessments were effectuated at baseline and after 2, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. Results showed that, regardless of the rating score, there are no significant statistical differences in the evaluation criteria between the two groups of patients Conclusions: For each material, the scores of USPHS criterion presented good clinical performances after 24 months, with no significant statistical differences between the fillings and the applied therapy in the two groups of patients.
