Cargando…
In vitro evaluation of root canal preparation with two rotary instrument systems – Pro Taper and Hero Shaper
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary Nickel-Titanium instruments: Pro-Taper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballagigues, Switzerland) and Hero-Shaper (Micro Mega, Besancon, France). METHODS: Twelve extracted maxill...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Iuliu Hatieganu University of Medicine and Pharmacy
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4632902/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26609276 http://dx.doi.org/10.15386/cjmed-454 |
Sumario: | BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary Nickel-Titanium instruments: Pro-Taper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballagigues, Switzerland) and Hero-Shaper (Micro Mega, Besancon, France). METHODS: Twelve extracted maxillary premolars were randomly divided into two groups and embedded into a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 25 using Pro-Taper or Hero-Shaper rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: root canal form, centering capacity of the instrument, the presence of residual dentinal debris and smear layer on the root canal walls, working time and the occurrence of intraoperative accidents. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi(2) test (p=0.05). RESULTS: The majority of the root canals prepared with Hero Shaper (88.89%) and ProTaper (77.78%) showed a round or oval cross-section postoperatively. Superposition of pre- and postoperative photographs of the cross-sections showed that for the coronal third of the root canals the Hero Shaper performed in a superior manner, while for the apical third better results were obtained with the Pro Taper system. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM, in the middle third of the canal, using a five-score system for debris and smear layer. For debris Hero Shaper and Pro Taper rotary systems achieved 66.67% and 50% scores of 1 or 2, respectively. The results for the smear layer were similar: cleaner root canal walls were found after preparation with Hero Shaper (66.67% scores 1, 2), followed by Pro Taper (50%). Mean working time was shorter for Hero Shaper (124s) than for Pro Taper (184s); the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, both systems had almost the same cleaning ability and excellent centering capacity. |
---|