Evaluación de la resistencia a la fractura de dientes instrumentados con ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Next y WaveOne Gold
Loading...
Identifiers
Publication date
Authors
Bernardo Justo, Noelia
Caballero Sánchez, José Antonio
Advisors
Editors
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Introducción: el tratamiento de conduc-tos produce cambios físico-químicos en la dentina y una pérdida estructural significativa para el diente, lo que lo hace más susceptible a la fractura. Material y métodos: 64 premolares mandibulares fueron decoronados y divididos aleatoriamente en cuatro grupos (n=16): grupo control (CG) no tratado, grupo instrumentado ProTaperGold® (PTG®) (25.08), grupo instrumentado ProTaperNext® (PTN®) (25.06) y grupo instrumen-tado WaveOne Gold PRIMARY® (WOG®) (25.07). Durante la instrumentación, se realizó la irrigación con NaOCl al 5,25% con una jeringa Monoject® y tras la instrumentación, las muestras se irrigaron con NaOCl, EDTA 17% y NaOCl activado sónicamente. Los conductos radiculares se obturaron utilizando el sistema B&L®, y posteriormente se colocaron en bloques de resina acrílica estandarizados para ser cargados con una fuerza vertical constante de 0,02 mm/s hasta que se produjo la fractura de la raíz, mediante una máquina de ensayo universal (ME-405/20, Servo-sis®). Las comparaciones entre grupos se analizaron con la prueba ANOVA.Resultados: No hubo diferencias estadísticamente significativas (p> 0,05) entre el GC y los grupos instrumentados con PTN® y WOG®; tampoco entre los grupos PTN® y WOG®. Sin embargo, se obtuvieron diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre el grupo instrumentado con PTG® y el resto de los grupos, siendo el grupo PTG® el más susceptible a la fractura. Conclusiones: El sistema PTG® fue el que más debilitó las raíces después de la instrumentación, en comparación con los sistemas WOG® y PTN®
Introduction: root canal treatment produces physicist-chemist changes in the dentine and a significant structural loss for the tooth what makes it more susceptible to fracture. Material and methods: 64 mandibular premolar were decoronated and randomly divided into four groups (n=16): control group (CG) non-treated, ProTaper Gold™ (PTG™) instrumented group (25.08), ProTaper Next™ (PTN™) instrumented group (25.06) and WaveOne Gold™ PRIMARY (WOG™) instrumented group (25.07). While shaping, cleaning was done with NaOCl 5,25% using a Monoject™ syringe and after shaping, roots were irrigated with NaOCl, EDTA 17% and NaOCl sonically activated. Root canals were obturated using B&L™ system, embedded into standardized acrylic resin blocks and load with a constant vertical force of 0,02 mm/s until root fracture was produced using a universal testing machine (ME-405/20, Servosis™). Comparisons among groups were analyzed with ANOVA test. Results: There were no statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) between the CG and the groups instrumented with PTN™ and WOG™; neither among PTN™ and WOG™ groups. However, statistically significant differences were obtained between the group instrumented with PTG™ and the rest of the groups being PTG™ group the most susceptible to fracture.
Introduction: root canal treatment produces physicist-chemist changes in the dentine and a significant structural loss for the tooth what makes it more susceptible to fracture. Material and methods: 64 mandibular premolar were decoronated and randomly divided into four groups (n=16): control group (CG) non-treated, ProTaper Gold™ (PTG™) instrumented group (25.08), ProTaper Next™ (PTN™) instrumented group (25.06) and WaveOne Gold™ PRIMARY (WOG™) instrumented group (25.07). While shaping, cleaning was done with NaOCl 5,25% using a Monoject™ syringe and after shaping, roots were irrigated with NaOCl, EDTA 17% and NaOCl sonically activated. Root canals were obturated using B&L™ system, embedded into standardized acrylic resin blocks and load with a constant vertical force of 0,02 mm/s until root fracture was produced using a universal testing machine (ME-405/20, Servosis™). Comparisons among groups were analyzed with ANOVA test. Results: There were no statistically significant differences (p> 0.05) between the CG and the groups instrumented with PTN™ and WOG™; neither among PTN™ and WOG™ groups. However, statistically significant differences were obtained between the group instrumented with PTG™ and the rest of the groups being PTG™ group the most susceptible to fracture.
Description
UNESCO Subjects
Keywords
Bibliographic reference
Bernardo, N., Díaz-Flores, V., Valencia, O., Caballero, J. A., y Cisneros, R. (2020). Evaluación de la resistencia a la fractura de dientes instrumentados con ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Next y WaveOne Gold. Científica Dental, 17(2), 115-120.








