Comparação do transporte, centralização e extrusão apical de detritos após o uso de sistemas de NiTi em canais radiculares curvos

Introdução: Os objetivos do presente estudo foram comparar a extrusão apical de detritos durante o preparo apical #25 com os sistemas Twisted File Adaptive (TFA), WaveOne Gold (WOG) e técnica manual (TM), registrar o tempo de preparo; e comparar WOG com TFA em relação ao transporte do canal radicular (TCR) e centralização (CR) com diâmetros apicais #25 e #35. Metodologia: Quarenta e cinco canais mésio-vestibulares de molares inferiores foram preparados e divididos em 3 grupos (n=15) para avaliar extrusão apical. A extrusão de detritos foi quantificada subtraindo-se o peso final do peso inicial dos tubos Eppendorf. TCR e CR foram avaliados em micro-TC com os sistemas TFA e WOG (n=15). A normalidade dos valores obtidos para cada grupo foi verificada usando teste de Kolmogorov-Smirnov. Para quantificar detritos extruídos e tempo de preparo, os dados foram paramétricos, sendo utilizado o Teste ANOVA de 1 via e post hoc de Tukey’s. Para avaliar TCR e CR, o teste estatístico foi Mann Whitney e Wilcoxon (α=.05). Resultados: Em relação aos detritos, o sistema WOG foi associado com menos extrusão em comparação com TM (P 0,05). O tempo de preparo exigido pela TM foi significativamente maior do que o exigido pelas outras técnicas (P 0,05). Para TCR, diferença significativa foi encontrada entre TFA e WOG a 1 e 7mm com diâmetro apical #25 e #35 (P 0.05). The preparation time required by hand files was significantly longer than that required by the other techniques (P 0.05). For RCT, significant difference was found among TFA and WOG at 1 mm and 7 mm with diameter apical #25 and #35. (p<0.05). Statistically different for the TFA in 4 mm was observed when the apical diameters # 25 and # 35 was evaluated in the same system (P <0,05). Conclusions: All of the instrumentation systems caused apical debris extrusion to some degrees. TFA and WOG can be used in curved root canals with safety with #25 or 35 apical diameters

Apically extruded debris in filling removal of curved canals using 3 NiTi systems and hand files

The aim of this study was to assess the amount of apically extruded debris during filling removal with WaveOne Gold (WOG), ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTR), D-RaCe Retreatment (DRR) or hand files (HF), to compare the working time during filling removal, and to describe failures of NiTi instruments. Forty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary first molars were prepared with WOG Primary, obturated and divided into 4 groups (n=10), according to the instruments used: WOG, PTR, DRR or HF. Distilled water was used as irrigant and the extruded debris were collected in Eppendorf tubes and dried. The amount of extruded debris was determined by subtracting the final from the initial weight. The time of filling removal for each canal was recorded and the instruments used were analyzed pre and post-operatively by SEM. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s test analyzed extruded debris data and ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test, compared the working time data (α=0.05). Instrument deformation and fracture were described. WOG produced significantly less debris compared with HF and DRR (p0.05). HF, PTR and DRR showed no significant difference (p>0.05). Working time in HF group was significantly higher than others (p<0.05). SEM analyses showed, from the 18 instruments evaluated, 3 fractures and 10 deformations. All instruments tested caused debris extrusion. WOG was associated with less extrusion than DRR and HF. Filling removal with HF was slower than with the other instruments. All NiTi systems presented fracture and deformation

Comparação do transporte, centralização e extrusão apical de detritos após o uso de sistemas de NiTi em canais radiculares curvos

Introdução: Os objetivos do presente estudo foram comparar a extrusão apical de detritos durante o preparo apical #25 com os sistemas Twisted File Adaptive (TFA), WaveOne Gold (WOG) e técnica manual (TM), registrar o tempo de preparo; e comparar WOG com TFA em relação ao transporte do canal radicular (TCR) e centralização (CR) com diâmetros apicais #25 e #35. Metodologia: Quarenta e cinco canais mésio-vestibulares de molares inferiores foram preparados e divididos em 3 grupos (n=15) para avaliar extrusão apical. A extrusão de detritos foi quantificada subtraindo-se o peso final do peso inicial dos tubos Eppendorf. TCR e CR foram avaliados em micro-TC com os sistemas TFA e WOG (n=15). A normalidade dos valores obtidos para cada grupo foi verificada usando teste de Kolmogorov-Smirnov. Para quantificar detritos extruídos e tempo de preparo, os dados foram paramétricos, sendo utilizado o Teste ANOVA de 1 via e post hoc de Tukey’s. Para avaliar TCR e CR, o teste estatístico foi Mann Whitney e Wilcoxon (α=.05). Resultados: Em relação aos detritos, o sistema WOG foi associado com menos extrusão em comparação com TM (P 0,05). O tempo de preparo exigido pela TM foi significativamente maior do que o exigido pelas outras técnicas (P 0,05). Para TCR, diferença significativa foi encontrada entre TFA e WOG a 1 e 7mm com diâmetro apical #25 e #35 (P 0.05). The preparation time required by hand files was significantly longer than that required by the other techniques (P 0.05). For RCT, significant difference was found among TFA and WOG at 1 mm and 7 mm with diameter apical #25 and #35. (p<0.05). Statistically different for the TFA in 4 mm was observed when the apical diameters # 25 and # 35 was evaluated in the same system (P <0,05). Conclusions: All of the instrumentation systems caused apical debris extrusion to some degrees. TFA and WOG can be used in curved root canals with safety with #25 or 35 apical diameters

Apically extruded debris in filling removal of curved canals using 3 NiTi systems and hand files

The aim of this study was to assess the amount of apically extruded debris during filling removal with WaveOne Gold (WOG), ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTR), D-RaCe Retreatment (DRR) or hand files (HF), to compare the working time during filling removal, and to describe failures of NiTi instruments. Forty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary first molars were prepared with WOG Primary, obturated and divided into 4 groups (n=10), according to the instruments used: WOG, PTR, DRR or HF. Distilled water was used as irrigant and the extruded debris were collected in Eppendorf tubes and dried. The amount of extruded debris was determined by subtracting the final from the initial weight. The time of filling removal for each canal was recorded and the instruments used were analyzed pre and post-operatively by SEM. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s test analyzed extruded debris data and ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test, compared the working time data (α=0.05). Instrument deformation and fracture were described. WOG produced significantly less debris compared with HF and DRR (p0.05). HF, PTR and DRR showed no significant difference (p>0.05). Working time in HF group was significantly higher than others (p<0.05). SEM analyses showed, from the 18 instruments evaluated, 3 fractures and 10 deformations. All instruments tested caused debris extrusion. WOG was associated with less extrusion than DRR and HF. Filling removal with HF was slower than with the other instruments. All NiTi systems presented fracture and deformation

Apically extruded debris in filling removal of curved canals using 3 NiTi systems and hand files

<div><p>Abstract The aim of this study was to assess the amount of apically extruded debris during filling removal with WaveOne Gold (WOG), ProTaper Universal Retreatment (PTR), D-RaCe Retreatment (DRR) or hand files (HF), to compare the working time during filling removal, and to describe failures of NiTi instruments. Forty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary first molars were prepared with WOG Primary, obturated and divided into 4 groups (n=10), according to the instruments used: WOG, PTR, DRR or HF. Distilled water was used as irrigant and the extruded debris were collected in Eppendorf tubes and dried. The amount of extruded debris was determined by subtracting the final from the initial weight. The time of filling removal for each canal was recorded and the instruments used were analyzed pre and post-operatively by SEM. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn’s test analyzed extruded debris data and ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test, compared the working time data (a=0.05). Instrument deformation and fracture were described. WOG produced significantly less debris compared with HF and DRR (p<0.05), and similar to PTR (p>0.05). HF, PTR and DRR showed no significant difference (p>0.05). Working time in HF group was significantly higher than others (p<0.05). SEM analyses showed, from the 18 instruments evaluated, 3 fractures and 10 deformations. All instruments tested caused debris extrusion. WOG was associated with less extrusion than DRR and HF. Filling removal with HF was slower than with the other instruments. All NiTi systems presented fracture and deformation.</p></div