Evaluation of the Shaping Characteristics of ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT, and Pro Taper Universal in Curved Canals
Evaluation of the Shaping Characteristics of ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT, and Pro Taper Universal in Curved Canals
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.009
复制
发表时间：
2015-10-01
影响因子：
4.2
通讯作者：
Basrani, Bettina
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gagliardi, Jason;Versiani, Marco Aurelio;Basrani, Bettina
简介：本研究评价了Pro Taper Gold系统（PTG;，Dentsply Maillefer，Ballaigues，Switzerland）的成形特征，并使用微型计算机断层扫描成像将其与ProTaper Next（PTN，Dentsply Maillefer）和ProTaper Universal（PTU，Dentsply Maillefer）系统进行了比较。研究方法：使用体素尺寸为19.6 μ m的微型计算机断层扫描（SkyScan 1174 v2; Bruker-microCT，孔蒂奇，比利时），在解剖学上匹配24个具有2个独立近中根管的下颌第一磨牙。分别使用PTG、PTU或PIN旋转系统在F2或X2仪器上准备根管，并再次扫描。共配准图像进行了评价的2-和3-维形态测量的根管运输，定心能力，未触及的根管壁，和剩余的牙本质厚度。使用Kruskal-Wallis和单因素方差分析检验（α = 5%）对数据进行统计学比较。结果：总体而言，PTN显示出显著高于PTG和PTU系统的静态体素百分比值（P <0.05）。PIG和PTU组的表面积、周长和内径均高于PIN组（P <0.05）。两组在形状因子、圆度、外径、平均直径比、结构模型指数等方面均无差异（P > 0.05）。PTG（0.11 +/- 0.05 mm）和PIN（0.09 +/- 0.05 mm）的运输量明显低于PTU（0.14 +/- 0.07 mm）（P < .05），PTG组牙本质厚度减少的百分比显著低于（22.67 ± 2.96）和PTN（17.71 ± 5.93%）（P >= .05）高于PTU（29.93 ± 6.24%）（P < .05）。结论：PTG和PTN比PTU产生更少的运输和更好的保持牙本质。PTN的根管壁接触比PIG和PTU少，但所有的文件系统都能够仪器中度弯曲的近中根管的下颌磨牙没有临床上显着的错误。
Introduction: This study evaluated the shaping characteristics of the Pro Taper Gold system (PTG;,Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and compared it with that of the ProTaper Next (PTN, Dentsply Maillefer) and ProTaper Universal (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer) systems using micro computed tomographic imaging. Methods: Twenty-four mandibular first molars with 2 separate mesial canals were matched anatomically using micro computed tomographic scanning (SkyScan1174v2; Bruker-microCT, Kontich, Belgium) with a voxel size of 19.6 mu m. Canals were prepared with PTG, PTU, or PIN rotary systems to F2 or X2 instruments, respectively, and scanned again. Coregistered images were evaluated for 2- and 3-dimensional morphometric measurements of canal transportation, centering ability, untouched canal walls, and remaining dentin thickness. Data were statistically compared using Kruskal-Wallis and 1-way analysis of variance tests (alpha = 5%). Results: Overall, PTN showed significantly higher percentage values of static voxels than PTG and PTU systems (P < .05). Surface area, perimeter, and minor diameter were higher in the PIG and PTU groups than in the PIN group (P < .05). No difference was observed in form factor, roundness, major diameter, as.pect ratio, or structure model index (P > .05). PTG (0.11 +/- 0.05 mm) and PIN (0.09 +/- 0.05 mm) produced significantly less transportation than PTU (0.14 +/- 0.07 mm) (P < .05), and the percentage decrease in dentin thickness was significantly lower for PTG (22.67 +/- 2.96) and PTN (17.71 +/- 5.93%) (P >= .05) than PTU (29.93 +/- 6.24%) (P < .05). Conclusions: PTG and PTN produced less transportation and maintained more dentin than PTU. PTN had less canal wall contact than PIG and PTU, but all file systems were able to instrument moderately curved mesial root canals of mandibular molars without clinically significant errors.