A carregar...
Publicação
Análise comparativa “in vitro” de extrusão apical de detritos originada por diferentes conicidades de instrumentos
| Nome: | Descrição: | Tamanho: | Formato: | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PPG_34939 | 887.71 KB | Adobe PDF |
Orientador(es)
Resumo(s)
Objetivo: Quantificar e comparar os detritos extruídos pelo forâmen apical usando os sistemas
de instrumentação ProTaper Gold®, ProTaper Next® e as técnicas híbridas
TruNatomy®/ProTaper Gold® e TruNatomy®/ProTaper Next®, onde as limas S1, S2 e X1 são
substituídas pelas limas TruNatomy Glider e TruNatomy Prime na execução do glidepath.
Métodos: 80 dentes monocanalares foram distribuídos aleatoriamente em quatro grupos
(n=20), de acordo com a técnica de instrumentação utilizada: técnicas híbridas
TruNatomy
®/Protaper Gold® e TruNatomy
®/ProTaper Next® e sistema ProTaper Gold® e
ProTaper Next®.
Os detritos foram recolhidos para tubos de Eppendorf. Após a instrumentação, os tubos foram
pesados três vezes consecutivas para obtenção do peso médio final. Foram constituídos 3 tubos
de controlo de hipoclorito, onde o peso médio final dos mesmos foi retirado ao peso médio final
dos 80 tubos. Após verificação da normalidade (teste de Shapiro-Wilk), foi realizado o teste
não-paramétrico de Kruskal-Wallis para comparar os quatro grupos em estudo. Para efetuar
comparações entre pares de técnicas, foram feitos testes de Mann-Whitney com correção de
Bonferroni.
Resultados: Os grupos TruNatomy/ProTaper Gold e TruNatomy/ProTaper Next produziram
significativamente menor extrusão em comparação com as técnicas ProTaper Gold e ProTaper
Next (p<0,05) respetivamente. A técnica TruNatomy/ProTaper Next apresentou peso de
detritos significativamente inferior aos restantes grupos (p<0,05) e a técnica ProTaper Gold
significativamente superior aos restantes (p<0,05).
Conclusão: As técnicas híbridas de instrumentação TruNatomy/ProTaper Gold e
TruNatomy/ProTaper Next produziram significativamente menor extrusão em comparação
com as técnicas ProTaper Gold e ProTaper Next.
Objective: Quantify and compare the debris extracted by the apical foramen using the ProTaper Gold®, ProTaper Next ®instrumentation systems and the TruNatomy®/ProTaper Gold ® and TruNatomy®/ProTaper Next® hybrid techniques, where the S1, S2 and X1 files are replaced by TruNatomy Glider and TruNatomy Prime files in the glidepath execution. Methods: 80 single-channel teeth were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 20), according to the instrumentation technique used: hybrid techniques TruNatomy®/Protaper Gold® and TruNatomy®/ProTaper Next® and ProTaper Gold® and ProTaper Next® systems. Debris was collected into Eppendorf tubes. After instrumentation, the tubes were weighed three times in a row to obtain the final average weight. Three hypochlorite control tubes were formed, where the final average weight of them was removed from the final average weight of the 80 tubes. After checking normality (Shapiro-Wilk test), the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was performed to compare the four groups under study. To make comparisons between pairs of techniques, Mann-Whitney tests were performed with Bonferroni correction. Results: The TruNatomy/ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy/ProTaper Next groups produced significantly less extrusion compared to the ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Next techniques (p <0,05) respectively. The TruNatomy/ProTaper Next technique has a significantly lower weight of debris than the other groups (p <0,05) and the ProTaper Gold technique significantly higher than the others (p <0,05). Conclusion: Hybrid instrumentation techniques TruNatomy/ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy/ ProTaper Next produced significantly less extrusion compared to ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Next techniques.
Objective: Quantify and compare the debris extracted by the apical foramen using the ProTaper Gold®, ProTaper Next ®instrumentation systems and the TruNatomy®/ProTaper Gold ® and TruNatomy®/ProTaper Next® hybrid techniques, where the S1, S2 and X1 files are replaced by TruNatomy Glider and TruNatomy Prime files in the glidepath execution. Methods: 80 single-channel teeth were randomly assigned to four groups (n = 20), according to the instrumentation technique used: hybrid techniques TruNatomy®/Protaper Gold® and TruNatomy®/ProTaper Next® and ProTaper Gold® and ProTaper Next® systems. Debris was collected into Eppendorf tubes. After instrumentation, the tubes were weighed three times in a row to obtain the final average weight. Three hypochlorite control tubes were formed, where the final average weight of them was removed from the final average weight of the 80 tubes. After checking normality (Shapiro-Wilk test), the Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was performed to compare the four groups under study. To make comparisons between pairs of techniques, Mann-Whitney tests were performed with Bonferroni correction. Results: The TruNatomy/ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy/ProTaper Next groups produced significantly less extrusion compared to the ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Next techniques (p <0,05) respectively. The TruNatomy/ProTaper Next technique has a significantly lower weight of debris than the other groups (p <0,05) and the ProTaper Gold technique significantly higher than the others (p <0,05). Conclusion: Hybrid instrumentation techniques TruNatomy/ProTaper Gold and TruNatomy/ ProTaper Next produced significantly less extrusion compared to ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Next techniques.
Descrição
Palavras-chave
Endodontic treatment Apical extrusion TruNatomy NiTi Smearlayer M-Wire NaOCl