Cargando…

Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file rotary systems in curved mesial root canals of maxillary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Curvatures of 25°–35° on mesial roots of 60 maxillary molar teeth were sectioned below...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nur, Bilge Gulsum, Ok, Evren, Altunsoy, Mustafa, Tanriver, Mehmet, Capar, Ismail Davut
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4439844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26038648
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.156804
_version_ 1782372557586956288
author Nur, Bilge Gulsum
Ok, Evren
Altunsoy, Mustafa
Tanriver, Mehmet
Capar, Ismail Davut
author_facet Nur, Bilge Gulsum
Ok, Evren
Altunsoy, Mustafa
Tanriver, Mehmet
Capar, Ismail Davut
author_sort Nur, Bilge Gulsum
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file rotary systems in curved mesial root canals of maxillary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Curvatures of 25°–35° on mesial roots of 60 maxillary molar teeth were sectioned below the cementoenamel junction to obtain roots 11 mm in length. The roots were balanced with respect to buccolingual and mesiodistal diameter and weight. They were distributed into three experimental groups and one control group (no instrumentation) (n = 15): Reciproc rotary file (R25, VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne Primary rotary file (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, UK) and OneShape (Micro-Mega, Besancon, France) rotary file. Vertical load was applied until fracture occurred. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean fracture load was 412 ± 72 Newton (N) for the control group, 395 ± 69 N for the Reciproc group, 373 ± 63 N for the WaveOne group and 332 ± 68 N for the OneShape group. The fracture load differences among three experimental groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05.) Whereas, the fracture loads of control and OneShape groups were significantly different (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Fracture resistance of the roots instrumented with WaveOne and Reciproc file systems were similar to the control group whereas it was observed that OneShape rotary file systems enhance the fracture strength of standardized curved roots when compared with the control group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4439844
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44398442015-06-02 Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals Nur, Bilge Gulsum Ok, Evren Altunsoy, Mustafa Tanriver, Mehmet Capar, Ismail Davut Eur J Dent Original Article OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file rotary systems in curved mesial root canals of maxillary molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Curvatures of 25°–35° on mesial roots of 60 maxillary molar teeth were sectioned below the cementoenamel junction to obtain roots 11 mm in length. The roots were balanced with respect to buccolingual and mesiodistal diameter and weight. They were distributed into three experimental groups and one control group (no instrumentation) (n = 15): Reciproc rotary file (R25, VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne Primary rotary file (Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, UK) and OneShape (Micro-Mega, Besancon, France) rotary file. Vertical load was applied until fracture occurred. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance test (P < 0.05). RESULTS: The mean fracture load was 412 ± 72 Newton (N) for the control group, 395 ± 69 N for the Reciproc group, 373 ± 63 N for the WaveOne group and 332 ± 68 N for the OneShape group. The fracture load differences among three experimental groups were not statistically significant (P > 0.05.) Whereas, the fracture loads of control and OneShape groups were significantly different (P = 0.012). CONCLUSIONS: Fracture resistance of the roots instrumented with WaveOne and Reciproc file systems were similar to the control group whereas it was observed that OneShape rotary file systems enhance the fracture strength of standardized curved roots when compared with the control group. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2015 /pmc/articles/PMC4439844/ /pubmed/26038648 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.156804 Text en Copyright: © European Journal of Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Nur, Bilge Gulsum
Ok, Evren
Altunsoy, Mustafa
Tanriver, Mehmet
Capar, Ismail Davut
Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
title Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
title_full Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
title_fullStr Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
title_full_unstemmed Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
title_short Fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
title_sort fracture strength of roots instrumented with three different single file systems in curved root canals
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4439844/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26038648
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.156804
work_keys_str_mv AT nurbilgegulsum fracturestrengthofrootsinstrumentedwiththreedifferentsinglefilesystemsincurvedrootcanals
AT okevren fracturestrengthofrootsinstrumentedwiththreedifferentsinglefilesystemsincurvedrootcanals
AT altunsoymustafa fracturestrengthofrootsinstrumentedwiththreedifferentsinglefilesystemsincurvedrootcanals
AT tanrivermehmet fracturestrengthofrootsinstrumentedwiththreedifferentsinglefilesystemsincurvedrootcanals
AT caparismaildavut fracturestrengthofrootsinstrumentedwiththreedifferentsinglefilesystemsincurvedrootcanals