Journal of endodontics · 2021
Analysis of Instrumentation Protocols Regarding the Quality of Mesial Canal Preparation in Mandibular Molars: A Micro-computed Tomographic 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.
Vivacqua Flavia Darius, Hungaro Duarte Marco Antonio, Vivan Rodrigo Ricci, Alcalde Murilo Priori, Furlan Renan Diego, Bramante Clovis Monteiro
Аннотация
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to use micro-computed tomographic imaging to analyze the quality of the endodontic preparation of mesial canals in mandibular molars provided by 3 instrumentation protocols.
METHODS: Forty-five extracted mandibular molars with 2 independent mesial canals were selected, and the initial micro-computed tomographic imaging was performed. The initial volume values of the canals were submitted to statistical analysis for paired division. The groups were determined according to the final enlargement of the canal and the working length adopted (ie, G25.06/+1 mm, G35.05/foramen, and G50.01/-1 mm). At the end of each instrumentation sequence, the root canals were scanned and analyzed with regard to the increase in the total and apical volume, centralization, and preparation transportation and the percentage of the total and apical uninstrumented walls.
RESULTS: For the intragroup comparison, the Wilcoxon test was used, and for the intergroup analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were used (P < .05). In the analysis of the canal total volume, a statistical difference was found between G25.06/+1 mm and the remaining groups (P < .05). In the apical third, a statistical difference was observed between G25.06/+1 mm and G50.01/-1 mm (P < .05). No statistical difference was found between the groups in terms of centralization and transportation of the preparation or in terms of the percentage of the total or apical uninstrumented walls.
CONCLUSIONS: The preparation of the mesial canals of mandibular molars up to larger tip files but with a lower taper at 1 mm before the foramen resulted in a larger volume of apical preparation, kept the preparation centralized, and provided safe apical dentin wear without excessive cervical wear.
METHODS: Forty-five extracted mandibular molars with 2 independent mesial canals were selected, and the initial micro-computed tomographic imaging was performed. The initial volume values of the canals were submitted to statistical analysis for paired division. The groups were determined according to the final enlargement of the canal and the working length adopted (ie, G25.06/+1 mm, G35.05/foramen, and G50.01/-1 mm). At the end of each instrumentation sequence, the root canals were scanned and analyzed with regard to the increase in the total and apical volume, centralization, and preparation transportation and the percentage of the total and apical uninstrumented walls.
RESULTS: For the intragroup comparison, the Wilcoxon test was used, and for the intergroup analysis, the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were used (P < .05). In the analysis of the canal total volume, a statistical difference was found between G25.06/+1 mm and the remaining groups (P < .05). In the apical third, a statistical difference was observed between G25.06/+1 mm and G50.01/-1 mm (P < .05). No statistical difference was found between the groups in terms of centralization and transportation of the preparation or in terms of the percentage of the total or apical uninstrumented walls.
CONCLUSIONS: The preparation of the mesial canals of mandibular molars up to larger tip files but with a lower taper at 1 mm before the foramen resulted in a larger volume of apical preparation, kept the preparation centralized, and provided safe apical dentin wear without excessive cervical wear.