Loading...
Publication
Análise comparativa "in vitro" de extrusão apical de detritos por diferentes ligas de instrumentação endodôntica
| Name: | Description: | Size: | Format: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG_27419 | 2.71 MB | Adobe PDF |
Advisor(s)
Abstract(s)
Introdução: O completo desbridamento da polpa é crítico para o sucesso endodôntico. No
entanto, durante o processo de instrumentação, podem ser extruídos detritos pelo Forâmen
Apical, provocando assim, inflamação pós-operatória e falha do tratamento. Pretende-se com
este estudo “in vitro” quantificar e comparar a quantidade da extrusão de detritos produzidos
pelas diferentes gerações de sistemas de instrumentação Protaper e limas manuais K-files.
Métodos: A pesquisa foi realizada numa amostra composta por 80 dentes monocanalares,
aleatoriamente distribuídos por 4 grupos (n=20), de acordo com a técnica de instrumentação
utilizada: ProTaper Universal®, Protaper Gold®, Limas K® e ProTaper NEXT® (Dentsply
Maillefer, Suíça).
Os detritos extruídos pelo Forâmen Apical foram coletados por Tubos de Eppendorf. Foram
obtidos 3 pesos consecutivos para cada tubo e a diferença de média inicial e final foi calculada.
Os dados obtidos foram analisados com os testes ANOVA e Game-Howell a fim de se poder
comparar as diferentes técnicas de instrumentação em análise.
Resultados: As médias dos detritos produzidos pelas ProTaper Next são significativamente
menores que os produzidos pelas ProTaper Universal e Gold. As Limas K não apresentam
diferenças significativas entre as outras técnicas avaliadas (p<0,05).
Conclusão: Independentemente do sistema de instrumentação utilizado, a extrusão apical de
detritos verificou-se em todas as técnicas avaliadas. As ProTaper Next produziram
significativamente menor extrusão de detritos em comparação com as ProTaper Universal e
Gold.
Introduction: The complete debridement of the root canal is critical to endodontic success. However, during the process of instrumentation process, debris can be extruded by Apical Foramen, provoking postoperative inflammation and treatment failure. This project pretends to perform an “in vitro” study to quantify and compare the amount of extrusion of debris through the apical foramen produced by different instrumentation systems. Methods: The research will be performed on a sample of 80 monocanal teeth, randomly distributed in 4 groups (n = 20), according to the instrumentation technique used: ProTaper Universal®, Protaper Gold®, K-Files ® and ProTaper NEXT® (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland). The debris extruded by Apical Foramen was collected by Eppendorf Tubes. Three consecutive weights were obtained for each tube and the initial and final mean difference was calculated. The data will be collected in Microsoft Excel tables and then statistically analyzed with the testes ANOVA and Games-Howell in order to be able to compare the different between the test groups. Results: The averages of the debris produced by ProTaper Next are significantly lower than those produced by ProTaper Universal and Gold. The K limes did not present significant differences among the other techniques evaluated (p <0.05). Conclusion: Regardless of the instrumentation system used, the apical extrusion of debris was verified in all techniques analyzed. ProTaper Next produced significantly less debris compared to ProTaper Universal and Gold.
Introduction: The complete debridement of the root canal is critical to endodontic success. However, during the process of instrumentation process, debris can be extruded by Apical Foramen, provoking postoperative inflammation and treatment failure. This project pretends to perform an “in vitro” study to quantify and compare the amount of extrusion of debris through the apical foramen produced by different instrumentation systems. Methods: The research will be performed on a sample of 80 monocanal teeth, randomly distributed in 4 groups (n = 20), according to the instrumentation technique used: ProTaper Universal®, Protaper Gold®, K-Files ® and ProTaper NEXT® (Dentsply Maillefer, Switzerland). The debris extruded by Apical Foramen was collected by Eppendorf Tubes. Three consecutive weights were obtained for each tube and the initial and final mean difference was calculated. The data will be collected in Microsoft Excel tables and then statistically analyzed with the testes ANOVA and Games-Howell in order to be able to compare the different between the test groups. Results: The averages of the debris produced by ProTaper Next are significantly lower than those produced by ProTaper Universal and Gold. The K limes did not present significant differences among the other techniques evaluated (p <0.05). Conclusion: Regardless of the instrumentation system used, the apical extrusion of debris was verified in all techniques analyzed. ProTaper Next produced significantly less debris compared to ProTaper Universal and Gold.
Description
Keywords
Endodontic Instrumentation Mechanical instrumentation Apical extrusion Debris extrusion Ni-Ti M-Wire Gold-Wire