RESUMEN
UNLABELLED: The search for new instruments to promote an appropriate cervical preparation has led to the development of new rotary instruments such as TripleGates. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, there is no study evaluating TripleGates effect on the "risk zone" of mandibular molars. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a crown-down sequence of Gates-Glidden and TripleGates burs on the remaining cervical dentin thickness and the total amount of dentin removed from the root canals during the instrumentation by using cone beam computed tomography. The number of separated instruments was also evaluated. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Mesial roots of 40 mandibular first molars were divided into 2 equal groups: crown-down sequence of Gates-Glidden (#3, #2, #1) and TripleGates burs. Cervical dentin thickness and canal area were measured before and after instrumentation by using cone beam computed tomography and image analysis software. Student's t-test was used to determine significant differences at p < 0.05. RESULTS: No significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed between the instruments, regarding the root canal area and dentin wall thickness. CONCLUSION: Both tested instruments used for cervical preparation were safe to be used in the mesial root canal of mandibular molars.
Asunto(s)
Tomografía Computarizada de Haz Cónico/métodos , Instrumentos Dentales , Cavidad Pulpar/diagnóstico por imagen , Dentina/diagnóstico por imagen , Preparación del Conducto Radicular/instrumentación , Diseño de Equipo , Humanos , Imagenología Tridimensional , Microscopía Electrónica de Rastreo , Diente Molar , Reproducibilidad de los Resultados , Preparación del Conducto Radicular/métodosRESUMEN
The search for new instruments to promote an appropriate cervical preparation has led to the development of new rotary instruments such as TripleGates. However, to the best of the authors' knowledge, there is no study evaluating TripleGates effect on the “risk zone” of mandibular molars. Objectives : The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of a crown-down sequence of Gates-Glidden and TripleGates burs on the remaining cervical dentin thickness and the total amount of dentin removed from the root canals during the instrumentation by using cone beam computed tomography. The number of separated instruments was also evaluated. Material and Methods : Mesial roots of 40 mandibular first molars were divided into 2 equal groups: crown-down sequence of Gates-Glidden (#3, #2, #1) and TripleGates burs. Cervical dentin thickness and canal area were measured before and after instrumentation by using cone beam computed tomography and image analysis software. Student’s t-test was used to determine significant differences at p<0.05. Results : No significant differences (p>0.05) were observed between the instruments, regarding the root canal area and dentin wall thickness. Conclusion : Both tested instruments used for cervical preparation were safe to be used in the mesial root canal of mandibular molars. .
Asunto(s)
Humanos , Masculino , Adulto , Accidentes de Trabajo , Hidróxido de Amonio/toxicidad , Quemaduras por Inhalación/complicaciones , Lesión Pulmonar/etiología , Lesión Pulmonar/cirugía , Agricultura , Quemaduras por Inhalación/etiología , Quemaduras por Inhalación/fisiopatología , Progresión de la Enfermedad , Explosiones , Estudios de Seguimiento , Puntaje de Gravedad del Traumatismo , Testigos de Jehová , Lesión Pulmonar/fisiopatología , Trasplante de Pulmón/métodos , Calidad de Vida , Enfermedades Raras , Medición de Riesgo , Factores de Tiempo , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of different concentrations of chlorhexidine on the decline in force of orthodontic elastics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a laboratory study, five groups of samples were tested, with one control group represented by distilled water (group 1) and four experimental groups: 0.12% manipulated chlorhexidine (group 2), 0.2% manipulated chlorhexidine (group 3), 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate-based oral solution (0.12% Periogard; group 4), and 0.2% Cleanform mouthwash (formula and action; group 5). The test groups were submersed in artificial saliva at 37°C. Templates were used and submerged in the chlorhexidine solutions for 30 seconds twice a day. Force was measured with a digital dynamometer at six different time intervals: 0, 1, 7, 14, 21, and 28 days. RESULTS: No statistical differences were found among the groups in the initial period, at 24 hours, and at 7 days (P > .05). There were statistical differences between groups 2 and 5 at 14 days of the experiment and between group 1 and the others at 28 days. In the initial period, the force was statistically higher than it was at any of the other periods of the experiment (P < .05). CONCLUSION: In the present study, chlorhexidine showed no significant influence on the force degradation of the chain elastics tested.