Journal of endodontics · 2017
Canal Transportation, Unprepared Areas, and Dentin Removal after Preparation with BT-RaCe and ProTaper Next Systems.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Brasil Sabrina C, Marceliano-Alves Marília F, Marques Márcia L, Grillo João P, Lacerda Mariane F L S, Alves Flávio R F, Siqueira José F, Provenzano José C
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the shaping ability of ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, Tulsa, OK) and BT-RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) instrument systems in the mesial canals of mandibular molars using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging.
METHODS: A total of 17 type IV mesial roots of extracted first mandibular molars were scanned using micro-CT imaging before and after root canal preparation with the 2 instrument systems. Both systems were used in the same root but alternating the mesial canals from root to root. The following parameters were analyzed: root canal volume, surface area, unprepared surface areas, transportation, canal/root width ratio, and preparation time.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 systems for all evaluated parameters (P > .05). The unprepared surface areas for the full canal length and the apical 5-mm segment were 33% and 14% for BT-RaCe and 31% and 14% for ProTaper Next, respectively. After preparation, all root canals had a diameter that was not larger than 35% of the root diameter at the coronal and middle segments.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 systems showed no differences in any of the evaluated shaping parameters. None of the tested systems put the roots at risk of fracture because of excessive dentin removal.
METHODS: A total of 17 type IV mesial roots of extracted first mandibular molars were scanned using micro-CT imaging before and after root canal preparation with the 2 instrument systems. Both systems were used in the same root but alternating the mesial canals from root to root. The following parameters were analyzed: root canal volume, surface area, unprepared surface areas, transportation, canal/root width ratio, and preparation time.
RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 systems for all evaluated parameters (P > .05). The unprepared surface areas for the full canal length and the apical 5-mm segment were 33% and 14% for BT-RaCe and 31% and 14% for ProTaper Next, respectively. After preparation, all root canals had a diameter that was not larger than 35% of the root diameter at the coronal and middle segments.
CONCLUSIONS: The 2 systems showed no differences in any of the evaluated shaping parameters. None of the tested systems put the roots at risk of fracture because of excessive dentin removal.