M.F.L.S. Lacerda, M.F. Marceliano-Alves, A.R. Pérez, J.C. Provenzano, M.A.S. Neves, F.R. Pires, L.S. Gonçalves, I.N. Rôças, J.F. Siqueira Jr.
Journal of Endodontics. 2017; 43(11):1878-1884
INTRODUCTION: The present study evaluated the cleaning and shaping ability of 3 instrumentation systems in oval canals of extracted vital teeth using a correlative analytic approach.
METHODS: Oval distal canals from 33 freshly extracted mandibular molars with pulp vitality were scanned by micro–computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging for sample selection. Specimens matched by anatomic similarities were distributed into 3 experimental groups according to the instrument system to be evaluated: the Self-Adjusting File (SAF; ReDentNOVA, Ra'anana, Israel), TRUShape (Dentsply Sirona, Tulsa, OK), and XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland). The irrigant was 5.25% sodium hypochlorite heated at 37°C. After rescanning with micro-CT imaging, the unprepared surface areas were identified, measured, and then histologically evaluated for the amount of pulp remnants in each root third.
RESULTS: When the apical 4-mm canal segment was evaluated, the SAF exhibited significantly less unprepared areas than the XP-endo Shaper (P < .05), and there were no significant differences for the other comparisons (P > .05). Analysis of the full canal length showed no statistically significant differences between the 3 tested systems (P > .05). Likewise, the tested systems did not differ significantly in cleaning the unprepared walls (P > .05).
CONCLUSIONS: There was no significant difference in the amount of unprepared surface areas between the 3 instrument systems, except for the comparison between the SAF and XP-endo Shaper in the apical 4-mm segment. None of them prepared 100% of the root canal walls. The cleaning ability of the 3 systems was similar.
Der vollständige Text des Artikels: Researchgate
