Shaping ability of ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal Ni-Ti rotary endodontic instruments in simulated root canals
10.3969/j.issn.2095-4344.2014.34.002
- VernacularTitle:机用镍钛器械ProTaper Next和ProTaper Universal在模拟根管内成形的能力
- Author:
Wenzhe LIU
;
Guangsheng CHEN
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
nickel;
titanium;
root canal preparation;
tissue engineering
- From:
Chinese Journal of Tissue Engineering Research
2014;(34):5418-5422
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND:Currently, the nickel-titanium file has no uniform international standards for clinical use, and several nickel-titanium systems have unique designs in terms of cross-sectional shape, taper change,
composition number, central steel volume, and cutting edge angle, so there are some differences in cleanup
capability, security, and cutting efficiency. ProTaper Next is developed based on the ProTaper Universal, and its composition number, blade cross-sectional shape, contact point with the root canal wal and the tip tapers are al improved.
OBJECTIVE:To compare the shaping ability between ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal Ni-Ti rotary endodontic instruments by preparing the simulated root canals.
METHODS: Two groups of resin blocks were prepared by ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal respectively. Preparation time and incidence of canal aberration and instruments failure were recorded. After preparation, the images taken before and after preparation were superimposed and analyzed by software Adobe Photoshop v7.0. We measured the amount of resin removed at the inner and outer canal wals. The centering ability was also assessed.
RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:There was no difference in the incidence of canal aberration. ProTaper Next was faster than ProTaper Universal to prepare canals (P < 0.05). Both instruments caused apical transportation.
ProTaper Universal F2 removed more materials than ProTaper Next X2 at the inner canal wals (P < 0.05). ProTaper Next showed better centering ability than ProTaper Universal in most levels (P < 0.05). Two instruments showed good performance in preparation but both created some apical transportation. However, the ProTaper Next was better in maintaining the original form of curved canal with safety and higher efficiency.
