Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
Data de Publicação: 2021
Outros Autores: Soares, Adriana de Jesus, Limoeiro, Ana Grasiela da Silva, Cintra, Fernanda Tessaro, Frozoni, Marcos, Campos, Gabriel Rocha
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: Research, Society and Development
DOI: 10.33448/rsd-v10i3.13028
Texto Completo: https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/13028
Resumo: This study aimed to evaluate, in vitro, the cutting efficiency and time spent for instrumentation of three different heat-treated reciprocating systems in simulated straight canals. Forty-five acrylic blocks with a straight simulated root canal with 21 millimeters in length were initially weighed (P1). After weighing the blocks were divided into three groups (n = 15) and each group prepared with the following systems:  ProDesign R 25.06 (Bassi/Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Reciproc Blue25.08 (VDW, Munich, Germany) and Wave one Gold (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The time spent for the total preparation of each block was recorded. After instrumentation, they were subjected to final weighing (P2). The difference between P1 and P2 determined the amount of material removed (cutting efficiency) by each mechanized system. The statistical analysis was performed by the ANOVA test of each of the variables, for multiple comparisons of means the turkey test was used. As for preparation time, it can be seen that ProDesign R showed a longer preparation time (P <0.5) compared to Reciproc Blue and Wave one Gold. Regarding cutting efficiency, there was no statistical difference between the groups (P> 0.5). In straight simulated canals, the type of reciprocating instrument influences the time for instrumentation; however, it shows similar cutting efficiency.
id UNIFEI_8979505bf4319995468f0a65efa83742
oai_identifier_str oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/13028
network_acronym_str UNIFEI
network_name_str Research, Society and Development
spelling Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instrumentsEficiencia de corte de los instrumentos alternativos ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue y WaveOne Gold Eficiência de corte dos instrumentos reciprocantes ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue e WaveOne Gold Dental pulp cavityEndodonticsRoot canal.Cavidad pulpar dentalEndodonciaCanal raíz. Cavidade da polpa dentáriaEndodontiaCanal radicular. This study aimed to evaluate, in vitro, the cutting efficiency and time spent for instrumentation of three different heat-treated reciprocating systems in simulated straight canals. Forty-five acrylic blocks with a straight simulated root canal with 21 millimeters in length were initially weighed (P1). After weighing the blocks were divided into three groups (n = 15) and each group prepared with the following systems:  ProDesign R 25.06 (Bassi/Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Reciproc Blue25.08 (VDW, Munich, Germany) and Wave one Gold (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The time spent for the total preparation of each block was recorded. After instrumentation, they were subjected to final weighing (P2). The difference between P1 and P2 determined the amount of material removed (cutting efficiency) by each mechanized system. The statistical analysis was performed by the ANOVA test of each of the variables, for multiple comparisons of means the turkey test was used. As for preparation time, it can be seen that ProDesign R showed a longer preparation time (P <0.5) compared to Reciproc Blue and Wave one Gold. Regarding cutting efficiency, there was no statistical difference between the groups (P> 0.5). In straight simulated canals, the type of reciprocating instrument influences the time for instrumentation; however, it shows similar cutting efficiency.Este estudio tuvo como objetivo evaluar, in vitro, la eficiencia de corte y el tiempo empleado para la instrumentación de tres sistemas alternativos tratados térmicamente diferentes en canales rectos simulados. Se pesaron inicialmente cuarenta y cinco bloques acrílicos con un conducto radicular recto simulado de 21 milímetros de longitud (P1). Después de pesar los bloques se dividieron en tres grupos (n = 15) y cada grupo se preparó con los siguientes sistemas: ProDesign R 25.06 (Bassi / Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brasil), Reciproc Blue25.08 (VDW, Munich, Alemania) y Wave un oro (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Suiza). Se registró el tiempo dedicado a la preparación total de cada bloque. Después de la instrumentación, se sometieron a pesaje final (P2). La diferencia entre P1 y P2 determinó la cantidad de material removido (eficiencia de corte) por cada sistema mecanizado. El análisis estadístico se realizó mediante la prueba ANOVA de cada una de las variables, para múltiples comparaciones de medias se utilizó la prueba del pavo. En cuanto al tiempo de preparación, se puede ver que ProDesign R mostró un tiempo de preparación más largo (P <0,5) en comparación con Reciproc Blue y Wave one Gold. Con respecto a la eficiencia de corte, no hubo diferencia estadística entre los grupos (P> 0.5). En canales rectos simulados, el tipo de instrumento alternativo influye en el tiempo de instrumentación; sin embargo, muestra una eficiencia de corte similar.Este trabalho teve como objetivo avaliar, in vitro, a eficiência de corte e o tempo gasto para instrumentação de três diferentes sistemas alternativos termicamente tratados em canais retos simulados. Foram pesados ​​inicialmente 45 blocos de acrílico com canal radicular simulado reto com 21 milímetros de comprimento (P1). Após pesagem os blocos foram divididos em três grupos (n = 15) e cada grupo preparado com os seguintes sistemas: ProDesign R 25.06 (Bassi / Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brasil), Reciproc Blue25.08 (VDW, Munique, Alemanha) e Wave um ouro (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Suíça). Foi registrado o tempo gasto para a preparação total de cada bloco. Após a instrumentação, foram submetidos à pesagem final (P2). A diferença entre P1 e P2 determinou a quantidade de material removido (eficiência de corte) por cada sistema mecanizado. A análise estatística foi realizada pelo teste ANOVA de cada uma das variáveis, para comparações múltiplas de médias foi utilizado o teste do peru. Quanto ao tempo de preparação, pode-se observar que o ProDesign R apresentou um tempo de preparação maior (P <0,5) em relação ao Reciproc Blue e Wave one Gold. Em relação à eficiência de corte, não houve diferença estatística entre os grupos (P> 0,5). Em canais simulados retos, o tipo de instrumento alternativo influencia o tempo de instrumentação; no entanto, mostra eficiência de corte semelhante.Research, Society and Development2021-03-03info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/1302810.33448/rsd-v10i3.13028Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 3; e1710313028Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 3; e1710313028Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 3; e17103130282525-3409reponame:Research, Society and Developmentinstname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)instacron:UNIFEIenghttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/13028/11676Copyright (c) 2021 Ana Elisa Aguiar Campos; Adriana de Jesus Soares; Ana Grasiela da Silva Limoeiro; Fernanda Tessaro Cintra; Marcos Frozoni; Gabriel Rocha Camposhttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessCampos, Ana Elisa AguiarSoares, Adriana de JesusLimoeiro, Ana Grasiela da Silva Cintra, Fernanda TessaroFrozoni, MarcosCampos, Gabriel Rocha2021-03-28T12:03:35Zoai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/13028Revistahttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/indexPUBhttps://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/oairsd.articles@gmail.com2525-34092525-3409opendoar:2024-01-17T09:34:26.719676Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)false
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
Eficiencia de corte de los instrumentos alternativos ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue y WaveOne Gold
Eficiência de corte dos instrumentos reciprocantes ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue e WaveOne Gold
title Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
spellingShingle Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
Dental pulp cavity
Endodontics
Root canal.
Cavidad pulpar dental
Endodoncia
Canal raíz.
Cavidade da polpa dentária
Endodontia
Canal radicular.
Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
Dental pulp cavity
Endodontics
Root canal.
Cavidad pulpar dental
Endodoncia
Canal raíz.
Cavidade da polpa dentária
Endodontia
Canal radicular.
title_short Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
title_full Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
title_fullStr Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
title_full_unstemmed Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
title_sort Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
author Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
author_facet Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
Soares, Adriana de Jesus
Limoeiro, Ana Grasiela da Silva
Cintra, Fernanda Tessaro
Frozoni, Marcos
Campos, Gabriel Rocha
Soares, Adriana de Jesus
Limoeiro, Ana Grasiela da Silva
Cintra, Fernanda Tessaro
Frozoni, Marcos
Campos, Gabriel Rocha
author_role author
author2 Soares, Adriana de Jesus
Limoeiro, Ana Grasiela da Silva
Cintra, Fernanda Tessaro
Frozoni, Marcos
Campos, Gabriel Rocha
author2_role author
author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Campos, Ana Elisa Aguiar
Soares, Adriana de Jesus
Limoeiro, Ana Grasiela da Silva
Cintra, Fernanda Tessaro
Frozoni, Marcos
Campos, Gabriel Rocha
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Dental pulp cavity
Endodontics
Root canal.
Cavidad pulpar dental
Endodoncia
Canal raíz.
Cavidade da polpa dentária
Endodontia
Canal radicular.
topic Dental pulp cavity
Endodontics
Root canal.
Cavidad pulpar dental
Endodoncia
Canal raíz.
Cavidade da polpa dentária
Endodontia
Canal radicular.
description This study aimed to evaluate, in vitro, the cutting efficiency and time spent for instrumentation of three different heat-treated reciprocating systems in simulated straight canals. Forty-five acrylic blocks with a straight simulated root canal with 21 millimeters in length were initially weighed (P1). After weighing the blocks were divided into three groups (n = 15) and each group prepared with the following systems:  ProDesign R 25.06 (Bassi/Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Reciproc Blue25.08 (VDW, Munich, Germany) and Wave one Gold (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The time spent for the total preparation of each block was recorded. After instrumentation, they were subjected to final weighing (P2). The difference between P1 and P2 determined the amount of material removed (cutting efficiency) by each mechanized system. The statistical analysis was performed by the ANOVA test of each of the variables, for multiple comparisons of means the turkey test was used. As for preparation time, it can be seen that ProDesign R showed a longer preparation time (P <0.5) compared to Reciproc Blue and Wave one Gold. Regarding cutting efficiency, there was no statistical difference between the groups (P> 0.5). In straight simulated canals, the type of reciprocating instrument influences the time for instrumentation; however, it shows similar cutting efficiency.
publishDate 2021
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2021-03-03
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/13028
10.33448/rsd-v10i3.13028
url https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/13028
identifier_str_mv 10.33448/rsd-v10i3.13028
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv https://rsdjournal.org/index.php/rsd/article/view/13028/11676
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
rights_invalid_str_mv https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv application/pdf
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 No. 3; e1710313028
Research, Society and Development; Vol. 10 Núm. 3; e1710313028
Research, Society and Development; v. 10 n. 3; e1710313028
2525-3409
reponame:Research, Society and Development
instname:Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
instacron:UNIFEI
instname_str Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
instacron_str UNIFEI
institution UNIFEI
reponame_str Research, Society and Development
collection Research, Society and Development
repository.name.fl_str_mv Research, Society and Development - Universidade Federal de Itajubá (UNIFEI)
repository.mail.fl_str_mv rsd.articles@gmail.com
_version_ 1822178491933655040
dc.identifier.doi.none.fl_str_mv 10.33448/rsd-v10i3.13028

Registros relacionados