Avaliação das características superficiais dos instrumentos Reciproc, Reciproc Blue e Xp-Endo Shaper / Evaluation of the surface characteristics of the Reciproc, Reciproc Blue and Xp-Endo Shaper instruments

RESUMO

Introdução: o controle da qualidade no processo de fabricação dos instrumentos endodônticos é importante uma vez que defeitos e falhas superficiais podem comprometer o preparo dos canais. Objetivo: avaliar a presença de defeitos e falhas do processo de fabricação na superfície de instrumentos Reciproc (R25), Reciproc Blue (RB25) e XP-endo shaper (XP), por meio de microscopia eletrônica de varredura (MEV). Materiais e Métodos: Ao total, foram avaliados 60 instrumentos de níquel titânio, sendo 20 por grupo R25, RB25 e XP, em três regiões 0mm (ponta do instrumento), 4mm e 7mm da ponta, no MEV, com aumento de 100x. As imagens foram avaliadas quanto ao número de falhas de fabricação (bordo irregular, ranhura, microcavidade e rebarba) e por um sistema de escores de 1 a 4, sendo 1, nenhuma área com defeito e 4, mais de cinco áreas com defeitos na superfície. Os dados foram submetidos à análise estatística utilizando o teste de Dunn (p<0,05). Resultados: Sobre a análise por regiões, foram identificadas diferenças significativas em grande parte dos instrumentos. Comparando os diferentes instrumentos, não foi observada diferença significativa para microcavidade (p=0,76), bordo irregular (p=0,98) e rebarba (p=0,40). O instrumento R25 mostrou maior número de ranhuras em comparação aos demais (p=0,0000*). RB25 mostrou maiores valores de escores que os instrumentos R25 (p= 0,0002) eXP (p=0,01). Conclusão: Todos os instrumentos avaliados apresentaram defeitos/falhas superficiais do processo de fabricação.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: The quality control of endodontic instruments is extremely importantsince defects and failures on their surface, during their manufacturing process, can compromise the preparation of root canal. Objective: this study evaluated the presence of defects and failures in the manufacturing process on the surface of Reciproc (R25), Reciproc Blue (RB25) and XP endo-shaper (XP) instruments by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: In total, sixty nickel titanium instruments (n=20) R25, RB25 and XP were evaluated in the scanning electron microscope in three regions 0mm (tip of the instrument), 4mmand 7mm of the tip, with a magnification of 100x. The images were evaluated in relation to the number of manufacturing faults (irregular border, groove, microcavity and burr) and by a system of scores, from 1 to 4, where 1 is no defective area and 4, more than five areas with defects on the surface. The data were submitted to statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). Results: Regarding the analysis by regions, significant differences were identified in most of the instruments. Comparing the different instruments, no significant difference was observed for microcavity (p=0.76), irregular border (p=0.98) and burr (p=0.40). The R25 instrument showed a greater number of grooves compared to the others (p=0.0000*). RB25 showed higher scores than the R25(p=0.0002) and XP (p=0.01) instruments. Conclusion: All evaluated instruments showed defects/failures in the manufacturing process.Introduction: The quality control of endodontic instruments is extremely importantsince defects and failures on their surface, during their manufacturing process, can compromise the preparation of root canal. Objective: this study evaluated the presence of defects and failures in the manufacturing process on the surface of Reciproc (R25), Reciproc Blue (RB25) and XP endo-shaper (XP) instruments by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: In total, sixty nickel titanium instruments (n=20) R25, RB25 and XP were evaluated in the scanning electron microscope in three regions 0mm (tip of the instrument), 4mmand 7mm of the tip, with a magnification of 100x. The images were evaluated in relation to the number of manufacturing faults (irregular border, groove, microcavity and burr) and by a system of scores, from 1 to 4, where 1 is no defective area and 4, more than five areas with defects on the surface. The data were submitted to statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). Results: Regarding the analysis by regions, significant differences were identified in most of the instruments. Comparing the different instruments, no significant difference was observed for microcavity (p=0.76), irregular border (p=0.98) and burr (p=0.40). The R25 instrument showed a greater number of grooves compared to the others (p=0.0000*). RB25 showed higher scores than the R25(p=0.0002) and XP (p=0.01) instruments. Conclusion: All evaluated instruments showed defects/failures in the manufacturing process.