Automatic Electronic Device Used for the Evaluation of Cyclic-Fatigue Resistance of Nickel-Titanium Instruments

he aim of this study was to evaluate the cyclic-fatigue fracture of different Nickel-Titanium motor-driven rotary instruments (ProTaper® Universal, ProFile®, and Mtwo® systems) in artificial canals by means of an Automatic Electronic Device (AED). The study was performed using NickelTitanium instruments 25/0.06 evaluated in canals with a 45-degree curvature and 2-mm radius. The analyses evaluated two parameters: fracture by cyclic fatigue, and time of fracture; in addition, the length of separated fragment was evaluated. Medians and range values were calculated for each group. Data were analyzed by the Kruskall-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests to determine statistical difference. The ProFile motor-driven rotator system exhibited highest resistance to fracture due to cyclic fatigue and highest fracture time compared with the ProTaper and Mtwo systems (p <0.05). The equipment proposed in this study (AED) demonstrated efficiency for recording information, automation, scheduled work times and durations, cycle number, time of fracture, pressure changes and, principally control of the human factor.

l objetivo del presente estudio fue evaluar la fractura a la fatiga cíclica de diferentes instrumentos rotatorios de Niquel-Titanio (sistemas ProTaper® Universal, ProFile® y Mtwo®) en conductos artificiales por medio de un Dispositivo Electrónico Automático (DEA). Se usaron instrumentos de Niquel-Titanio 25/0.06, los cuales se evaluaron en conductos con una curvatura de 45 grados y 2 milímetros de radio. Se analizaron dos parámetros: Fractura a la fatiga cíclica y tiempo a la fractura; además se evaluó la longitud del fragmento separado. Medianas y rangos fueron calculados para cada uno de los grupos. Los resultados fueron analizados por las pruebas de Kruskall-Wallis y U de Mann-Whitney para determinar diferencias estadísticas. El Sistema ProFile mostró una mayor resistencia y tiempo a la fractura en comparación con los sistemas ProTaper y Mtwo (p <0.05). El equipo propuesto en este estudio (DEA) demostró eficiencia para el registro de la información, tiempos de trabajo y duración, número de ciclos, tiempo a la fractura, cambios en la presión y principalmente control del factor humano.

Influence of Apical Patency and Cleaning of the Apical Foramen on Periapical Extrusion in Retreatment

This study evaluated the influence of apical patency, root filling removal technique and cleaning of the apical foramen, concerning the amount of debris extruded during root canal retreatment. Forty mandibular incisors were randomly assigned to 4 groups - GIM (n=10), GIIM (n=10), GIPT (n=10) and GIIPT (n=10), which were named according to leaving (I) or not (II) apical patency during canal preparation and filling removal technique (manual - M or ProTaper system - PT). After filling material removal, each specimen of each group had the apical foramen cleaned by sizes 15, 20 and 25 instruments, generating 12 subgroups: GIM15, GIM20, GIM25, GIIM15, GIIM20, GIIM25, GIPT15, GIPT20, GIPT25, GIIPT15, GIIPT20 and GIIPT25. Extruded filling debris was collected by a Milipore filtration system, an HV-durapore, 0.45 µm pore filter with a 25 mm diameter. The filters were weighed before and after the collection on an analytical scale (10–5 g), and the difference was calculated. The mean weight of extruded filling debris was analyzed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis and Friedman ANOVA tests (α=0.05). The mean values found in the groups (in mg) were: GIM (0.95±0.94), GIIM (0.47±0.62), GIPT (0.30±0.31) and GIIPT (0.32±0.44). There was no statistically significant difference among any of the groups or subgroups (p>0.05). ProTaper provided the smallest amount of extruded filling material, regardless of presence or absence of apical patency, followed by manual technique, without and with apical patency. Additional amounts of debris were collected during cleaning of the apical foramen, regardless of the instrument, presence/absence of patency or root filling removal technique.

Este estudo verificou a influência da patência apical, técnica de desobturação e limpeza foraminal na quantidade de material sólido extruído, durante retratamento endodôntico. Quarenta incisivos inferiores foram divididos aleatoriamente em quatro grupos - GIM (n=10), GIIM (n=10), GIPT (n=10) e GIIPT (n=10) - nomeados de acordo com a realização (I) ou não (II) de patência apical durante o preparo de canais e a técnica de desobturação - manual (M) ou sistema ProTaper (PT). Após a desobturação, realizou-se a limpeza foraminal em cada espécime de todos os grupos com instrumentos #15, #20 e #25, gerando 12 subgrupos: GIM15, GIM20, GIM25, GIIM15, GIIM20, GIIM25, GIPT15, GIPT20, GIPT25, GIIPT15, GIIPT20 e GIIPT25. O material sólido extruído foi coletado pelo sistema de filtração Millipore®, com filtros de 0,45 µm de poro e 25 mm de diâmetro. Os filtros foram pesados antes e após a coleta, em balança analítica de precisão (10–5g), e as diferenças foram calculadas. Os valores médios encontrados (em mg) foram: GIM (0,95±0,94), GIIM (0,47±0,62), GIPT (0,30±0,31) e GIIPT (0,32±0,44), sem diferença estatística entre quaisquer dos grupos ou subgrupos (p>0,05). O sistema Protaper proporcionou a menor quantidade de material sólido extruído, independente da presença ou não de patência apical seguidos da técnica manual sem e com patência apical. Quantidades adicionais foram coletadas durante a limpeza foraminal, independente do instrumento utilizado, da presença ou não da patência apical ou da técnica de desobturação.

Wear promoted in the apical third of simulated canals after instrumentation with protaper universal system

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the wear in the apical third of simulate canals after preparation with ProTaper Universal Rotary System. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 24 sets of instruments were used in 24 simulated canals in transparent epoxy resin blocks with degree of curvature of either 20°or 40°. The canals were photographed preoperatively and after preparation of the apical stop with ProTaper F3, F4 and F5 instruments. The initial and final images were exported to Adobe Photoshop® software and superimposed to detect the root canal wall differences (in mm) between them, in two points located 1 (A) and 5 (B) mm from the point where the working length was established. Data were subjected to analysis of variance to verify the existence of interaction among the factors: canal curvature, instrument size and curve location. Significant level was set at 5 percent. RESULTS: Regardless of the location and the canal curvature, F4 and F5 instruments produced the greatest wear (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: There was a deviation from the original pathway towards the outside of the root curvature in both analyzed points. All instruments produced canal transportation, but the F4 and F5 instruments produced more than the other instruments, and should thus be used with care in curved canals.