Contemporary clinical dentistry · 2025
Comparative Evaluation of Fracture Resistance of Teeth Instrumented by Self adjusting File, Protaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM: An In vitro Study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Yashas D M, Basavanna R S, Kumar Nm Dhanya, Arya Aishwarya, Jain Poojitha, Adhaulia Ishaan
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: The primary aim of endodontic treatment is to preserve the structural integrity of teeth while enhancing their resistance to fractures. Endodontically treated teeth are more susceptible to fractures due to the removal of tooth structure and radicular dentin. This study evaluates and compares the fracture resistance of teeth instrumented using three rotary file systems: self-adjusting file (SAF), ProTaper NEXT, and Hyflex EDM.
METHODOLOGY: Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were randomly divided into four groups: Group I (control, uninstrumented), Group II (SAF), Group III (ProTaper NEXT), and Group IV (Hyflex EDM). Following instrumentation, root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer, except in the control group. Samples were embedded in acrylic resin, and fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests to compare group differences.
RESULTS: The control group exhibited the highest fracture resistance (560.46 ± 125.0 N). Among the instrumented groups, SAF demonstrated the greatest fracture resistance (537.8 ± 126.3 N), followed by Hyflex EDM (440.7 ± 210.3 N), whereas ProTaper NEXT exhibited the lowest (379.93 ± 130.0 N). Significant differences were noted between groups (P < 0.001). SAF preserved dentinal integrity most effectively, whereas ProTaper NEXT induced more structural damage.
CONCLUSION: The SAF system, with its adaptive design and minimal dentin removal, was superior in preserving root strength. ProTaper NEXT, although efficient in shaping, increased fracture risk due to higher stress generation. Hyflex EDM offered intermediate outcomes, combining flexibility and reduced dentin damage.
METHODOLOGY: Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were randomly divided into four groups: Group I (control, uninstrumented), Group II (SAF), Group III (ProTaper NEXT), and Group IV (Hyflex EDM). Following instrumentation, root canals were obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus sealer, except in the control group. Samples were embedded in acrylic resin, and fracture resistance was tested using a universal testing machine. Statistical analysis included analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc tests to compare group differences.
RESULTS: The control group exhibited the highest fracture resistance (560.46 ± 125.0 N). Among the instrumented groups, SAF demonstrated the greatest fracture resistance (537.8 ± 126.3 N), followed by Hyflex EDM (440.7 ± 210.3 N), whereas ProTaper NEXT exhibited the lowest (379.93 ± 130.0 N). Significant differences were noted between groups (P < 0.001). SAF preserved dentinal integrity most effectively, whereas ProTaper NEXT induced more structural damage.
CONCLUSION: The SAF system, with its adaptive design and minimal dentin removal, was superior in preserving root strength. ProTaper NEXT, although efficient in shaping, increased fracture risk due to higher stress generation. Hyflex EDM offered intermediate outcomes, combining flexibility and reduced dentin damage.