RESUMO
Abstract This study assessed 3 endodontic motors, X-Smart Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), VDW.Silver Reciproc (VDW GmbH, München, Germany) and, iRoot (Bassi Endodontics, Belo Horizonte, Brazil) in 2 different reciprocating settings. The movements evaluated were 170° in counter-clockwise (CCW) and 50° in clockwise (CW) at 350 RPM, and 150° CCW and 30° CW at 300 RPM. For the X-Smart Plus and VDW Silver the settings used were the ones in the motor library. For the iRoot, the motor was adjusted to the angles of the study. A customized optic target was attached to the contra-angle of the motor and the movements were recorded with a high-resolution camera (K2 DistaMaxTM Long-Distance Microscope System, Infinity Photo-Optical Company, Colorado, EUA) at 2,400 frames per second (FPS). The images were analyzed with the Vision Research software (Inc. Headquarters, Wayne, New Jersey, EUA). The following kinematic parameters were assessed: CCW angle, CW angle, speed (RPM) at both directions, and, standstill time at each change of directions. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis (method of Dunn) were used at a significant level of 5%. There was no statistically significant difference among the motors at the 150°/30° setting (P > .05); the iRoot was the least reliable at the 170°/50° setting for CCW angle, speed, and net angle parameters (P < 0.05). The standstill time of all motors in both directions was identical. None of the motors were able to reproduce faithfully the set movements. The iRoot motor presented a higher discrepancy when compared to X-Smart and VDW Silver.
Resumo Este estudo avaliou 3 motores endodônticos, X-Smart Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Suíça), VDW.Silver Reciproc (VDW GmbH, Munique, Alemanha) e iRoot (Bassi Endodontics, Belo Horizonte, Brasil) em 2 diferentes ajustes de movimento reciprocante. Os movimentos analisados foram: 170° em sentido anti-horário (CCW) e 50° em sentido horário (CW) a 350 RPM, e 150° CCW e 30° CW a 300 RPM. Para os motores X-Smart Plus e VDW Silver os ajustes usados foram os que se apresentam nos ajustes pré-definidos dos motores. Para o iRoot o motor foi ajustado para os ângulos do estudo. Um alvo ótico customizado foi preso ao contra ângulo do motor e os movimentos foram gravados com uma câmara de alto resolução (K2 DistaMaxTM Long-Distance Microscope System, Infinity Photo-Optical Company, Colorado, EUA) a 2.400 quadros por segundo (FPS). As imagens foram analisadas com o sotware Vision Research (Inc. Headquarters, Wayne, Nova Jersey, USA). Os seguintes parâmetros de cinemática foram avaliados: ângulo anti-horário, ângulo horário, ângulo líquido, velocidade (RPM) em ambas direções e tempo de parada a cada mudança de direção. O Coeficiente de Correlação Intraclasse (ICC) e o teste de Kruskal-Wallis (método de Dunn) foram usados com nível de significâncias de 5%. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre os motores no ajuste de 150°/30° (P > .05); o motor iRoot foi o menos confiável no ajuste de 170°/50° para o ângulo anti-horário, velocidade e ângulo líquido (P < 0.05). O tempo de parada em todos os motores foi idêntico em ambas as direções. Nenhum dos motores foi capaz de reproduzir fielmente os movimentos. O motor iRoot apresentou maior discrepância quando comparado com o X-Smart Plus e VDW Silver.
RESUMO
The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the two different Ni-Ti file systems and the two different engine systems in simulated canals. A total of four groups of each 10 were tested. Each group was instrumented with HeroShaper(R)and Endo-Mate2(R) (Group HE), HeroShaper(R) and Tecnika(R) (Group HT), ProFile(R) and Endo-Mate2(R) (Group PE), and ProFile(R) and Tecnika(R) (Group PT). Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post- instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of increased width and centering ratio were measured and calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5 mm levels. These data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test The results of this study were as follows; 1. Canal preparation time of HT group was the shortest (p < 0.05). 2. The amount of increased canal width in HE group was significantly larger than PT group at apical 1 mm level (p < 0.05). At apical 3 mm level, PT group was significantly smaller than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, PE group was significantly larger than PT group (p < 0.05). 3. The amount of centering ratio in HE group was significantly larger than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, HT group was significantly larger than PE group and PT group (p < 0.05). Under the condition of this study, torque-controlled endodontic motor is safer than no torque controlled motor, especially when the active file is used.