Loading...
Publication
Análise comparativa "in vitro" da extrusão apical de detritos originados por diferentes técnicas de instrumentação do sistema de canais radiculares: sistema One Shape®, sistema Protaper Next®, Hyflex® EDM e sistema WaveOne® Gold
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG_33255 | 6.03 MB | Adobe PDF |
Authors
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Introdução: A extrusão apical detritos (EAD) consequência indesejável da
instrumentação canalar pode ser associada a dor/edema, podendo atrasar a cicatrização
periapical. O nosso trabalho teve como objectivo avaliar e quantificar a EAD em canais
instrumentados por sistemas de instrumentação rotatória contínua e reciprocante.
Materiais e Métodos: 80 dentes monocanalares sem tratamento endodôntico prévio
foram aleatoriamente divididos em 4 grupos (n=20): One Shape® Protaper® NEXT,
Hyflex® EDM e WaveOne® Gold. Um tubo de Eppendorf (TdE) foi pesado
antecipadamente numa balança analítica de precisão e com um dente inserido foi
montado num dispositivo modificado, similar ao método descrito por Myers &
Montgomery. Os canais foram instrumentados e irrigados com água destilada. Os dentes
instrumentados foram removidos dos TdE e estes preenchidos com água destilada até
perfazer 1,5ml, incubados a 70ºC durante cinco dias sendo pesados novamente,
calculando a diferença entre o peso inicial e final determinando o peso dos detritos. Os
dados foram analisados estatisticamente utilizando o IBM SPSS Statistics 22,
considerando α=0,05. Efetuaram-se testes Kruskal-Wallis e post-hoc com ajustamento
do ρ-value pelo método Dunn-Bonferroni.
Resultados: Houve EAD em todas as técnicas de instrumentação. A análise estatística
mostrou haver diferenças significativas na EAD entre as técnicas utilizadas (α=0,002).
Entre as técnicas WaveOne® Gold e One Shape® (α=0,003), WaveOne® Gold e
Protaper® NEXT (α=0,023) e WaveOne® Gold e Hyflex® EDM (α=0,028).
Conclusões: A técnica One Shape® apresentou menor EAD e a técnica WaveOne® Gold
com movimento reciprocante constitui maior fator de risco tendo apresentado maior
EAD. Os resultados deste estudo indicam que os profissionais devem estar cientes para
a EAD que pode ocorrer com cada instrumento, o que poderá servir de base para a
selecção de um instrumento particular.
Implicações clínicas: A escolha do sistema de instrumentação canalar influencia a
extrusão de detritos. Fontes de financiamento: Agradecimentos as empresas; Micro-Mega, França,
COLTÉNE e Dentsply Maillefer, Suíça.
Introduction: Apical extrusion debris (AED), an undesirable consequence of root canal instrumentation can be associated with pain / edema and may delay the periapical healing. The aim of our project was to evaluate and quantify the AED in root canal instrumented with continuous and reciprocating rotary instrumentation systems. Materials and Methods: 80 single root canal teeth without endodontic treatment were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 20): One Shape®, Protaper NEXT®, Hyflex® EDM and WaveOne® Gold. An Eppendorf tube (ET) was weighed in advance with an analytical scale, and with an inserted tooth, it was mounted on a modified device similar to the method described by Myers & Montgomery. The root canals were instrumented and irrigated with distilled water. The instrumented teeth were removed from the ET and these were filled with distilled water up to 1.5 ml, incubated at 70°C for five days and weighed again, the difference between the initial weight and final was calculated determining the weight of debris. Data was statistically analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22, considering α = 0.05. Kruskal-Wallis test and post-hoc adjustment of ρ- value by Dunn-Bonferroni method was carried out. Results: There was AED in all instrumentation techniques. Statistical analysis showed significant differences in AED between the techniques used (α = 0.002). Among the WaveOne® Gold and One Shape®, techniques (α = 0.003), WaveOne® Gold and Protaper NEXT®, (α = 0.023) and WaveOne® Gold and Hyflex® EDM (α = 0.028). Conclusion: One Shape® technique presented lower AED while WaveOne® Gold technique with reciprocating movement is a major risk factor due to greater AED. The results of this study indicated that practitioners should be aware of the debris extrusion with each instrument, which could help with the decision for selection of a particular instrument. Clinical implications: The choice of root canal instrumentation system influences the extrusion of debris. Sponsorship: Micro-Mega, França, COLTÉNE e Dentsply Maillefer, Suíça.
Introduction: Apical extrusion debris (AED), an undesirable consequence of root canal instrumentation can be associated with pain / edema and may delay the periapical healing. The aim of our project was to evaluate and quantify the AED in root canal instrumented with continuous and reciprocating rotary instrumentation systems. Materials and Methods: 80 single root canal teeth without endodontic treatment were randomly divided into 4 groups (n = 20): One Shape®, Protaper NEXT®, Hyflex® EDM and WaveOne® Gold. An Eppendorf tube (ET) was weighed in advance with an analytical scale, and with an inserted tooth, it was mounted on a modified device similar to the method described by Myers & Montgomery. The root canals were instrumented and irrigated with distilled water. The instrumented teeth were removed from the ET and these were filled with distilled water up to 1.5 ml, incubated at 70°C for five days and weighed again, the difference between the initial weight and final was calculated determining the weight of debris. Data was statistically analysed using IBM SPSS Statistics 22, considering α = 0.05. Kruskal-Wallis test and post-hoc adjustment of ρ- value by Dunn-Bonferroni method was carried out. Results: There was AED in all instrumentation techniques. Statistical analysis showed significant differences in AED between the techniques used (α = 0.002). Among the WaveOne® Gold and One Shape®, techniques (α = 0.003), WaveOne® Gold and Protaper NEXT®, (α = 0.023) and WaveOne® Gold and Hyflex® EDM (α = 0.028). Conclusion: One Shape® technique presented lower AED while WaveOne® Gold technique with reciprocating movement is a major risk factor due to greater AED. The results of this study indicated that practitioners should be aware of the debris extrusion with each instrument, which could help with the decision for selection of a particular instrument. Clinical implications: The choice of root canal instrumentation system influences the extrusion of debris. Sponsorship: Micro-Mega, França, COLTÉNE e Dentsply Maillefer, Suíça.
Description
Keywords
Extrusão apical detritos Instrumentação canalar Rotação contínua Movimento reciprocante M-Wire CM-Wire Apical extrusion debris Root canal instrumentation Continuous rotation Reciprocating movement M-Wire CM-Wire