{"title":"制备的protaper next、protaper gold和hyflex CM旋转锉对牙齿抗折性能的比较","authors":"M. Rinastiti, Andina Widyastuti, W. Hadriyanto","doi":"10.22146/majkedgiind.82711","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Preparation of the root canal system is a crucial step in root canal treatment. Endodontically treated teeth differ structurally from healthy, untreated teeth. This can lead to root cracking by creating pressure on the canal wall, reducing the fracture resistance of the tooth. Different designs, including cross-sectional shape, tip, taper, flute, radial land, helix angle, rake angle, and pitch, can influence the outcome of the root canal preparation and the risk of root fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth after root canal preparation using three different NiTi rotary files: ProTaper Next (PN), ProTaper Gold (PG), and HyFlex CM (HC). Thirty premolars with a single and straight root canal were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction, leaving 14 mm of the root. The subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 10) was prepared using PN, group 2 (n = 10) was prepared using PG, and group 3 (n = 10) was prepared using HC. After instrumentation and irrigation, the specimens were subjected to a continuous vertical compressive force (crosshead-speed of 2.28 mm/sec) in order to record the force (in newtons) until root fracture. To describe the surface characteristic of the dentinal root after the preparation, a section fragment from the apical third of the specimens was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 2500x magnification. The micrographs were analyzed according to the Hulsman’s method. The results demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference in root fracture resistance among the three groups. (p = 0.043). The LSD post hoc test indicated that HC showed a higher root fracture resistance (p < 0.05) compared to both PN and PG. In conclusion, the different file systems of PN, PG, and HC instruments generate different root fracture resistance of teeth. In comparison to PN and PG, HC instruments tend to result in increased fracture resistance.","PeriodicalId":31262,"journal":{"name":"Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files\",\"authors\":\"M. Rinastiti, Andina Widyastuti, W. Hadriyanto\",\"doi\":\"10.22146/majkedgiind.82711\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Preparation of the root canal system is a crucial step in root canal treatment. Endodontically treated teeth differ structurally from healthy, untreated teeth. This can lead to root cracking by creating pressure on the canal wall, reducing the fracture resistance of the tooth. Different designs, including cross-sectional shape, tip, taper, flute, radial land, helix angle, rake angle, and pitch, can influence the outcome of the root canal preparation and the risk of root fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth after root canal preparation using three different NiTi rotary files: ProTaper Next (PN), ProTaper Gold (PG), and HyFlex CM (HC). Thirty premolars with a single and straight root canal were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction, leaving 14 mm of the root. The subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 10) was prepared using PN, group 2 (n = 10) was prepared using PG, and group 3 (n = 10) was prepared using HC. After instrumentation and irrigation, the specimens were subjected to a continuous vertical compressive force (crosshead-speed of 2.28 mm/sec) in order to record the force (in newtons) until root fracture. To describe the surface characteristic of the dentinal root after the preparation, a section fragment from the apical third of the specimens was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 2500x magnification. The micrographs were analyzed according to the Hulsman’s method. The results demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference in root fracture resistance among the three groups. (p = 0.043). The LSD post hoc test indicated that HC showed a higher root fracture resistance (p < 0.05) compared to both PN and PG. In conclusion, the different file systems of PN, PG, and HC instruments generate different root fracture resistance of teeth. In comparison to PN and PG, HC instruments tend to result in increased fracture resistance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":31262,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia\",\"volume\":\"15 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.82711\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22146/majkedgiind.82711","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
根管系统准备是根管治疗的关键步骤。牙髓治疗后的牙齿在结构上与未治疗的健康牙齿不同。这会对根管壁造成压力,从而导致牙根开裂,降低牙齿的抗折能力。不同的设计,包括横截面形状、尖端、锥度、凹槽、径向地、螺旋角、前角和节距,会影响根管准备的结果和根管断裂的风险。本研究的目的是评估使用三种不同的NiTi旋转锉:ProTaper Next (PN)、ProTaper Gold (PG)和HyFlex CM (HC)进行根管预备后牙齿的抗折断性。在牙髓-牙釉质交界处装饰30颗具有单一直根管的前磨牙,留下14mm的根管。受试者分为3组。第1组(n = 10)采用PN制备,第2组(n = 10)采用PG制备,第3组(n = 10)采用HC制备。在仪器和灌溉后,试件连续承受垂直压缩力(十字头速度为2.28 mm/sec),以记录力(单位为牛顿)直至根部断裂。为了描述制备后牙本质根的表面特征,使用2500倍放大的扫描电子显微镜(SEM)观察了标本根尖三分之一的切片碎片。显微照片按赫尔斯曼法进行分析。结果显示,三组患者牙根抗折性差异有统计学意义。(p = 0.043)。LSD事后检验显示,HC比PN和PG具有更高的牙根抗折能力(p < 0.05)。由此可见,不同文件系统的PN、PG和HC器械对牙齿牙根抗折能力的影响是不同的。与PN和PG相比,HC器械倾向于增加抗骨折能力。
Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files
Preparation of the root canal system is a crucial step in root canal treatment. Endodontically treated teeth differ structurally from healthy, untreated teeth. This can lead to root cracking by creating pressure on the canal wall, reducing the fracture resistance of the tooth. Different designs, including cross-sectional shape, tip, taper, flute, radial land, helix angle, rake angle, and pitch, can influence the outcome of the root canal preparation and the risk of root fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth after root canal preparation using three different NiTi rotary files: ProTaper Next (PN), ProTaper Gold (PG), and HyFlex CM (HC). Thirty premolars with a single and straight root canal were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction, leaving 14 mm of the root. The subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 10) was prepared using PN, group 2 (n = 10) was prepared using PG, and group 3 (n = 10) was prepared using HC. After instrumentation and irrigation, the specimens were subjected to a continuous vertical compressive force (crosshead-speed of 2.28 mm/sec) in order to record the force (in newtons) until root fracture. To describe the surface characteristic of the dentinal root after the preparation, a section fragment from the apical third of the specimens was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 2500x magnification. The micrographs were analyzed according to the Hulsman’s method. The results demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference in root fracture resistance among the three groups. (p = 0.043). The LSD post hoc test indicated that HC showed a higher root fracture resistance (p < 0.05) compared to both PN and PG. In conclusion, the different file systems of PN, PG, and HC instruments generate different root fracture resistance of teeth. In comparison to PN and PG, HC instruments tend to result in increased fracture resistance.