Maggiolo VS, Abarca VAM, Silva SN, Dreyer AE, Ardila MCM

Language: Spanish
References: 10
Page: 401-407
PDF size: 68.33 Kb.

ABSTRACT

Background: one of the most important aspects in treating dental root canals is the mechanical root canal preparation.
Objective: to compare two techniques for quantifying endodontic instrumentation, searching which one removes the least amount of dentin. Methods: the sample consisted of 30 mandible molars extracted and stored in chloramines T to 12%. The group 1 (n = 15) was treated with a manual rotary technique using Gates-Glidden drills while group 2 (n = 15) was instrumented with a rotational technique using Pro-Taper files. Following instrumentation root in the two experimental groups was measured in the cervical portion, and apical half of each distal canal. The evaluation of periapical radiographs was processed with Adobe Photoshop. The statistical analysis used unpaired t test.
Results: for the group 1 the measurements cervical, middle and apical were 0.48 mm, 0.27 mm and 0.21 mm, respectively, while for the group 2 were 0.69 mm, 0.31 mm and 0.24 mm, respectively. Only statistically significant differences in the cervical portion of the two groups were showed, viewing less wear dentin in group 1 (p = 0.01).
Conclusions: higher cervical root dentin removal in canals treated with Pro-Taper files was observed.

REFERENCES

1. Sanfelice CM, da Costa FB, Reis Só MV, Vier-Pelisser F, Souza Bier CA, Grecca FS. Effects of four instruments on coronal pre-enlargement by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod. 2010; 36:858-61.

2. Duarte MA, Bernardes RA, Ordinola-Zapata R, Vasconcelos BC, Bramante CM, Moraes IG. Effects of Gates-Glidden, LA Axxess and orifice shaper burs on the cervical dentin thickness and root canal area of mandibular molars. Braz Dent J. 2011; 22:28-31.

3. Paqué F, Balmer M, Attin T, Peters OA. Preparation of oval-shaped root canals in mandibular molars using nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod. 2010; 36:703-7.

4. Unal GC, Maden M, Savgat A, Onur Orhan E. Comparative investigation of 2 rotary nickel-titanium instruments: protaper universal versus protaper. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009; 107:886-92.

5. El Batouty KM, Elmallah WE. Comparison of canal transportation and changes in canal curvature of two nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2011; 37:1290-2.

6. Paqué F, Zehnder M, De-Deus G. Microtomography-based comparison of reciprocating single-file F2 ProTaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod. 2011; 37:1394-7.

7. Iqbal MK, Floratos S, Hsu YK, Karabucak B. An in vitro comparison of Profile GT and GTX nickel-titanium rotary instruments in apical transportation and length control in mandibular molar. J Endod. 2010; 36:302-4.

8. Bramante CM, Fidelis NS, Assumpcao TS, Bernardineli N, Garcia RB, Bramante AS, et al. Heat release, time required, and cleaning ability of MTwo R and ProTaper universal retreatment systems in the removal of filling material. J Endod. 2010; 36:1870-3.

9. Mireku AS, Romberg E, Fouad AF, Arola D. Vertical fracture of root filled teeth restored with posts: the effects of patient age and dentine thickness. Int Endod J. 2010; 43:218-25.

10. Kivanc BH, Alacam T, Ulusoy OI, Genc O, Gorgul G. Fracture resistance of thin-walled roots restored with different post systems. Int Endod J. 2009; 42:997-1003.