Cargando…

Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 300 teeth with a single st...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Rubio, Jorge, Zarzosa, José Ignacio, Pallarés, Antonio
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: University of Zagreb School of Dental Medicine, and Croatian Dental Society - Croatian Medical Association 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29225361
http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc51/3/4
_version_ 1783282625670021120
author Rubio, Jorge
Zarzosa, José Ignacio
Pallarés, Antonio
author_facet Rubio, Jorge
Zarzosa, José Ignacio
Pallarés, Antonio
author_sort Rubio, Jorge
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene's test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Levene's test showed no equality of variances (P<0.05), therefore Welch´s and Games-Howell's tests were applied to cutting areas, showing significant differences in all thirds and overall (P<0.05). No differences in root canal anatomy preservation were observed (P>0.05). In non-instrumented areas, significant differences were found (P<0.05) in middle third being better in Reciproc®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®, and in apical thirds being higher P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®. CONCLUSIONS: In cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For non-instrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®, Reciproc®, Hyflex EDM®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in apically.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5708324
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher University of Zagreb School of Dental Medicine, and Croatian Dental Society - Croatian Medical Association
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57083242017-12-08 Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad Rubio, Jorge Zarzosa, José Ignacio Pallarés, Antonio Acta Stomatol Croat Original Scientific Papers OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene's test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: Levene's test showed no equality of variances (P<0.05), therefore Welch´s and Games-Howell's tests were applied to cutting areas, showing significant differences in all thirds and overall (P<0.05). No differences in root canal anatomy preservation were observed (P>0.05). In non-instrumented areas, significant differences were found (P<0.05) in middle third being better in Reciproc®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®, and in apical thirds being higher P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®. CONCLUSIONS: In cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For non-instrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®, Reciproc®, Hyflex EDM®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in apically. University of Zagreb School of Dental Medicine, and Croatian Dental Society - Croatian Medical Association 2017-09 /pmc/articles/PMC5708324/ /pubmed/29225361 http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc51/3/4 Text en http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (CC BY-NC-ND) 4.0 License.
spellingShingle Original Scientific Papers
Rubio, Jorge
Zarzosa, José Ignacio
Pallarés, Antonio
Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad
title Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad
title_full Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad
title_fullStr Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad
title_short Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad
title_sort comparison of shaping ability of 10 rotary and reciprocating systems: an in vitro study with autocad
topic Original Scientific Papers
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5708324/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29225361
http://dx.doi.org/10.15644/asc51/3/4
work_keys_str_mv AT rubiojorge comparisonofshapingabilityof10rotaryandreciprocatingsystemsaninvitrostudywithautocad
AT zarzosajoseignacio comparisonofshapingabilityof10rotaryandreciprocatingsystemsaninvitrostudywithautocad
AT pallaresantonio comparisonofshapingabilityof10rotaryandreciprocatingsystemsaninvitrostudywithautocad