Apical Transportation and Centering Ability After Root Canal Filling Removal Using Reciprocating and Continuous Rotary Systems: A CBCT Study
| Autor: | André Augusto Franco Marques, Lucas da Fonseca Roberi Garcia, Etienny da Silva Arruda, Márcio Acris de Carvalho Fredson, Mariana Travi Pandolfo, Emílio Carlos Sponchiado-Júnior |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Orthodontics
Molar Apical transportation Root canal Significant difference Material removal 030206 dentistry Mesial root rotary systems Computed tomographic 030207 dermatology & venereal diseases 03 medical and health sciences Reciprocating motion 0302 clinical medicine medicine.anatomical_structure centering ability medicine Original Article reciprocating motion General Dentistry Mathematics |
| Zdroj: | European Journal of Dentistry |
| ISSN: | 1305-7464 1305-7456 |
| Popis: | Objective To evaluate the apical transportation and centering ability promoted by reciprocating and continuous rotary systems after root canal filling removal. Materials and Methods After obturation, 40 mesial root canals of mandibular molars were distributed into four groups (n = 20) for filling material removal: PTU group–F2 instrument (25.08) of ProTaper Universal system; R25 group–R25 instrument (25.08) of Reciproc system; X2 group–X2 instrument (25.06) of ProTaper Next system and X3 group–X2 instrument (25.06) of ProTaper Next system, followed by X3 instrument (30.07). Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis was performed before and after filling material removal for acquisition of apical images. Apical transportation (AT) and its direction, and centering ability (CA), were assessed using the equations AT = (X1–X2)–(Y1–Y2) and CA = (X1–X2/Y1–Y2 or Y1–Y2/X1–X2), respectively. Data were submitted to the nonparametric Kruskal–Wallis and Dunn multiple comparison tests (p < 0.05) for statistical analysis. Results There was no statistically significant difference among groups for AT (p > 0.05), with a tendency toward transportation in the distal direction. Also, there was no statistically significant difference among groups regarding CA (p > 0.05). Conclusions The different systems, including ProTaper Next, caused AT within the acceptable clinical limit after filling removal. In addition, none of the tested systems presented adequate CA. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|