Diameter and Taper Variability of Single-file Instrumentation Systems and Their Corresponding Gutta-percha Cones
Diameter and Taper Variability of Single-file Instrumentation Systems and Their Corresponding Gutta-percha Cones
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.joen.2018.06.005
复制
发表时间：
2018-09-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Roedig, Tina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Haupt, Franziska;Seidel, Miriam;Roedig, Tina
简介：制造商提供单锉器械系统与匹配的牙胶（GP）锥，以简化根管预备和充填。本研究的目的是确定锉刀直径和锥度是否与相应的圆锥直径和锥度（精度）以及行业标准（准确度）匹配。研究方法：使用光学显微镜（x32）检查了F360（#25、#35、#45、#55，锥度为0.04）和Reciproc（#25、#40、#50，锥度可变）器械的每种尺寸的20个锉和相应的GP锥体，以确定其直径和锥度。采用单因素方差分析（α = 0.05）和Scheffe事后检验以及Bonferroni校正t检验评价精密度。通过从所有锉和GP圆锥的测量值中减去标称值来计算准确度，并通过使用单向方差分析（α = 0.05）和成对比较的Scheffe事后检验来比较平均直径和锥度差异。结果如下：对于F360，大多数锉和锥直径在公差范围内，但大多数锉直径显著大于GP锥直径（P < .05），但大多数测量值在公差范围内。对于Reciproc，D1和D3处的锉和锥直径大多接近标称值。在冠状端，锉直径#25和#50明显小于锥直径（P <0.05）。对于两种手术工具系统，几乎所有锉和锥锥度都符合预设公差范围。对于Reciproc，锉刀和GP圆锥体之间的显著差异表明圆锥体较小或锉刀直径和锥度较小，具体取决于尺寸。大多数测量值在可接受的范围内，但电晕处的直径！端显示出与标称值的最高百分比差异。结论：尽管要求标准化，但可以预期单锉内固定系统及其相应GP锥体之间的直径和锥度尺寸存在差异。
Introduction: Manufacturers offer single-file instrumentation systems with matching gutta-percha (GP) cones to simplify root canal preparation and obturation. The purpose of this study was to determine whether file diameters and tapers match with corresponding cone diameters and tapers (precision) as well as industry standards (accuracy). Methods: Twenty files and corresponding GP cones from each size of F360 (#25, #35, #45, #55 with .04 taper) and Reciproc (#25, #40, #50 with variable tapers) instruments were examined by using optical microscopy (x32) to determine their diameter and taper. Precision was evaluated by using one-way analysis of variance (alpha = 0.05) with Scheffe post hoc tests and t tests with Bonferroni correction. Accuracy was calculated by subtracting the nominal values from the measured values of all files and GP cones, and mean diameter and taper differences were compared by using one-way analysis of variance (alpha = 0.05) and Scheffe post hoc test for pairwise comparison. Results: For F360, the majority of file and cone diameters were within the tolerance levels, but most of the file diameters were significantly larger than GP cone diameters (P < .05), but the majority of all measured values were within the tolerance levels. For Reciproc, file and cone diameters at D1 and D3 mostly approached the nominal values. At the coronal end, file diameters #25 and #50 were significantly smaller than cone diameters (P < .05). For both instrumentation systems, almost all file and cone tapers matched with the preset tolerance ranges. For Reciproc, significant differences between file and GP cone demonstrated either smaller cone or smaller file diameters and tapers, depending on the size. Most of the measured values were within the acceptable range, but diameters at the corona! end exhibited the highest percent difference from the nominal values. Conclusions: Despite the call for standardization, variability in diameter and taper dimensions between single-file instrumentation systems and their corresponding GP cones can be expected.