Avaliação microtomográfica de canais mesiais de molares inferiores preparados com sistemas rotatórios e reciprocantes

• Autor(a) principal: Alves, Marília Fagury Videira Marceliano
• Data de Publicação: 2013
• Tipo de documento: Tese
• Idioma: por
• Título da fonte: Biblioteca Digital de Teses e Dissertações da UERJ
• Texto Completo: http://www.bdtd.uerj.br/handle/1/14019
• topic: Computed microtomography; Nickel-titanium instruments; Reciprocating motion; Root canal preparation; Tomografia computadorizada; Instrumentos de níquel-titânio; Movimento reciprocante; Preparo do canal radicular; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA

The aim of this work was to analyze, in X-ray computed microtomography (µCT), the root canal preparation of mandibular molars with different engine driven systems. 58 mesial roots were selected, of anatomic diameter corresponding to #10. For the analysis in µTC, a stainless steel ring was manufactured in the same shape as the brace for µCT sampling, in order to serve as a mold to insert the roots in Duralay resin, so as to standardize the position of the specimen in the initial and final scanning. The canals were prepared with the Reciproc R25 (n=16), WaveOne Primary File (n=16), Twisted File (n=14) and HyFlex (n=12) systems. After being scanned, they were three-dimensionally reconstructed and quantitatively evaluated as regards the variation of volume (mm3), surface area (mm2) and structure model index (SMI). In addition, the qualitative evaluation of the cross sections by third and by quadrant (MV, ML, DV, DL) was carried out, along with the wall touching evaluation. The parametric data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and t-tests for paired samples (α=5%). No statistical difference was observed in the qualitative parameters evaluated for Reciproc (142.77 ± 76.75; 42.22 ± 19.22; and 14.68 ± 17.69; respectively), WaveOne (105.09 ± 64.82; 29.54 ± 19.21; 14.81 ± 9.10; respectively), Twisted File (111.83 ± 43.09; 33.31 ± 18.40; 9.16 ± 6.57; respectively) and HyFlex (151.74 ± 149.37; 43.08 ± 41.44; 10.80 ± 8.52) (p=0,423). Significant difference was observed within each group between the pre- and post-results. The Kruskal-Wallis non-parametric test was applied for the evaluation as regards root canal wall touching. At the end, we observed that the HyFlex system presented the highest touching rate (82.3 ± 13.1), followed by the Reciproc (81.3 ± 16.9), Twisted File (78.3 ± 14.4) and, finally, WaveOne (76.9 ± 21.7) systems (p>0.05). As for the thirds, was not observed any significant difference (p=0.424). The results of the evaluation in the intergroup quadrants did not show any difference; however, they showed that there was a preparation trend towards the distal wall in the cervical third. At the end, it can conclude that the systems tested are equivalent as regards the preparation of mesial canals of mandibular molars, but none of the techniques was capable of fully touching all root canal walls.