ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The purpose of this study was to compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary Nickel-Titanium instruments: Pro-Taper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballagigues, Switzerland) and Hero-Shaper (Micro Mega, Besancon, France). METHODS: Twelve extracted maxillary premolars were randomly divided into two groups and embedded into a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 25 using Pro-Taper or Hero-Shaper rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: root canal form, centering capacity of the instrument, the presence of residual dentinal debris and smear layer on the root canal walls, working time and the occurrence of intraoperative accidents. Statistical analysis was performed using the chi(2) test (p=0.05). RESULTS: The majority of the root canals prepared with Hero Shaper (88.89%) and ProTaper (77.78%) showed a round or oval cross-section postoperatively. Superposition of pre- and postoperative photographs of the cross-sections showed that for the coronal third of the root canals the Hero Shaper performed in a superior manner, while for the apical third better results were obtained with the Pro Taper system. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM, in the middle third of the canal, using a five-score system for debris and smear layer. For debris Hero Shaper and Pro Taper rotary systems achieved 66.67% and 50% scores of 1 or 2, respectively. The results for the smear layer were similar: cleaner root canal walls were found after preparation with Hero Shaper (66.67% scores 1, 2), followed by Pro Taper (50%). Mean working time was shorter for Hero Shaper (124s) than for Pro Taper (184s); the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, both systems had almost the same cleaning ability and excellent centering capacity.
ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the study was to assess the biocompatibility of a composite material considering the reaction caused at the implant site during 21 days by daily observing the subjects' behavior as well as by macroscopic examination and histological examination upon expiry of the testing period. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We performed the tolerance test by implant of the composite material Dualcim. The implant test was made on two species of lab animals, Guinea pigs and Wistar rats in two versions: subcutaneous implant and intramuscular÷perimuscular implant. RESULTS: After a 21 days period, when the implant was in direct contact with the tissue, no change of the shape and consistency, color or surface of the implant occurred. Around the implants, the biocompatibility was kept under physiological limits. CONCLUSIONS: The product, in the structure and shape presented, could be easily placed under good conditions, both at the level of the subcutaneous tissue and at inter-muscular level. In case of both species and in all subjects, the histological exam proved a favorable development of the relationship between the implant body and the placing site.
