Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics最新文献

Objectives: The study investigated the difficulties experienced by endodontics researchers around the world in conducting studies and writing papers.

Materials and methods: A survey consisting of 18 questions on the difficulties experienced by endodontics researchers in performing studies and writing papers was e-mailed to academics in the field of endodontics working at 202 universities. The independent risk factors were analyzed using binary logistic regression at a significance level of 0.05.

Results: A total of 581 individuals (10.7%) agreed to participate in the study. Almost half the participants (48.2%) reported that they had received some type of training in conducting studies and writing papers. In response to the question, "Do you get help from a statistician to perform the statistical analyses of your studies?," 77.1% answered "yes." Around 40% of the participants stated that the need to obtain ethical approval negatively affected their desire to conduct studies. The participants' regions had no effect on the reported difficulties associated with writing papers in English or conducting statistical analyses (p > 0.05). Most participants (81.8%) reported difficulties in writing the Discussion section, regardless of their region, academic degrees, or years of experience.

Conclusions: The participants stated they experienced difficulties in many areas, such as conducting statistical analyses, finding new ideas, and writing in English. Engaging in a detailed examination of ethics committee rules, expanding biostatistics education, increasing the number of institutions providing research funding, and increasing the number of endodontics journals can increase the enthusiasm of endodontics researchers to publish papers.

Objectives: This study compared the cyclic fatigue resistance of One Curve (C wire) and F6 Skytaper (conventional austenite nickel-titanium [NiTi]), and 2 instruments with thermo-mechanically treated NiTi: Protaper Next X2 (M wire) and Hyflex CM (CM wire).

Materials and methods: Ten new instruments of each group (size: 0.25 mm, 6% taper in the 3 mm tip region) were tested using a rotary bending machine with a 60° curvature angle and a 5 mm curvature radius, at room temperature. The number of cycles until fracture was recorded. The length of the fractured instruments was measured. The fracture surface of each fragment was examined with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test. The significance level was set at 0.05.

Results: At 60°, One Curve, F6 Skytaper and Hyflex CM had significantly longer fatigue lives than Protaper Next X2 (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found in the cyclic fatigue lives of One Curve, F6 Skytaper, and Hyflex CM (p > 0.05). SEM images of the fracture surfaces of the different instruments showed typical features of fatigue failure.

Conclusions: Within the conditions of this study, at 60° and with a 5 mm curvature radius, the cyclic fatigue life of One Curve was not significantly different from those of F6 Skytaper and Hyflex CM. The cyclic fatigue lives of these 3 instruments were statistically significantly longer than that of Protaper Next.

This review aimed to characterize the effect of direct restorative material types and adhesive protocols on marginal adaptation and the bond strength of the interface between the material and the proximal dentin/cementum. An electronic search of 3 databases (the National Library of Medicine [MEDLINE/PubMed], Scopus, and ScienceDirect) was conducted. Studies were included if they evaluated marginal adaptation or bond strength tests for proximal restorations under the cementoenamel junction. Only 16 studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. These studies presented a high degree of heterogeneity in terms of the materials used and the methodologies and evaluation criteria of each test; therefore, only a descriptive analysis could be conducted. The included studies were individually evaluated for the risk of bias following predetermined criteria. To summarize the results of the included studies, the type of restorative material affected the test results, whereas the use of different adhesive protocols had an insignificant effect on the results. It could be concluded that various categories of resin-based composites could be a suitable choice for clinicians to elevate proximal dentin/cementum margins, rather than the open sandwich technique with resin-modified glass ionomers. Despite challenges in bonding to proximal dentin/cementum margins, different adhesive protocols provided comparable outcomes.

Objectives: This study aimed to assess the impact of a glide-path on the shaping ability of 2 single-file instruments and to compare the centering ability, maintenance of original canal curvatures and area of instrumentation in simulated S-shaped root canals.

Materials and methods: Forty simulated S-shaped root canals were used and were prepared with One Curve (group OC), One G and OC (group GOC), Reciproc Blue (group RB) and R-Pilot and RB (group PRB) and scanned before and after instrumentation. The images were analyzed using AutoCAD. After superimposing the samples, 4 levels (D1, D2, D3, and D4) and 2 angles (Δ1 and Δ2) were established to evaluate the centering ability and modification of the canal curvatures. Then, the area of instrumentation (ΔA) was measured. The data were analyzed using 2-way analysis of variance and Tukey's test for multiple comparisons (p < 0.05).

Results: Regarding the centering ability in the apical part (D3, D4), the use of the glide-path yielded better results than the single-file groups. Among the groups at D4, OC showed the worst results (p < 0.05). The OC system removed less material (ΔA) than the RB system, and for Δ1, OC yielded a worse result than RB (p < 0.05).

Conclusions: The glide-path improved the centering ability in the apical part of the simulated S-shaped canals. The RB system showed a better centering ability in the apical part and major respect of the canal curvatures compared with OC system.