Revo-S ve Lightspeed-LSX Döner Sistem Eğelerinin Aşırı Eğimli Kök Kanallarındaki Etkinliğinin Araştırılması / Analysis of Preparation Performance of Revo-S vs. Lightspeed-LSX on the Cross Sections of Severe Curved Root Canals

Yıl 2020, Cilt: 7 Sayı: 2, 174 - 179, 01.08.2020

Durmuş Alperen Bozkurt , Ayşe Diljin Keçeci

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.528446

Öz

Amaç: Aşırı eğimli kök kanallarında
iki farklı döner sistem eğeleri ile kök kanalı şekillendirme etkinliğini
karşılaştırmak.

Gereç ve Yöntemler: Otuz adet aşırı eğimli (38.96±12.89)
mandibular birinci molar dişler çalışmaya dâhil
edildi. Eşit olarak iki gruba ayrılan dişlerin çalışma boyu ve kanal
devamlılığı tespit edildi. Düşük hızlı testere yardımı ile dişlerin
apikal, orta ve koronal seviyelerinden kesitler alındı. Şekillendirme sırasında Bramente ve ark. (1987) belirttiği gibi
mufla sisteminden faydalanıldı. Kesitlerden dijital görüntüler şekillendirme
öncesi ve sonrasında stereo mikroskop (x40) ile alındı.
Mufla sistemine sırasıyla yerleştirilmiş olan kesitlerde Revo-S ve
Lightspeed-LSX eğeleri ile apikal genişlik 40 olacak şekilde genişletildi.
Merkezde kalma oranı, şekillendirilmiş alan, şekillendirilmemiş alan ve
transportasyon dijital görüntülerin öncesi ve sonrasında üst üste monte
edilerek ölçüldü. Bağımsız t testi, One-way ANOVA ve post-hok Tukey testi
uygulanmıştır (P<0.05).

Bulgular: Merkezde kalma oranı ortalama Revo-S
0,23±0,12 ve Lightspeed LSX için 0,13±0,08. Apikalde Revo-S (0.26 mm²)
Lightspeed-LSX (0.15 mm²)’e göre dentin alanı kaldırması daha fazla
olmuştur (P<0.05). Şekillendirilmemiş alanda Revo-S ve Lightspeed-LSX için
istatistiksel olarak anlamlı farklılıklar gözlenmiştir: servikal (% 21.52 ve
7.28), orta (% 23.66 ve 6.00) ve apikal (% 17.68 ve 5.41) (P<0.05).

Sonuçlar: Lightspeed LSX’ in Revo-S’ e göre daha merkezi kök kanalı
şekillendirmesi yaptığı görülmüştür. 

Anahtar Kelimeler: bilgisayar-destekli görüntü analizi, kök kanalını hazırlama, mikroskopi

Anahtar Kelimeler

bilgisayar-destekli görüntü analizi, kök kanalını hazırlama, mikroskopi, computer-assisted image analysis, microscopy, root canal preparation

Kaynakça

• 1. Setzer FC, Kwon T-K, Karabucak B. Comparison of apical transportation between two rotary file systems and two hybrid rotary instrumentation sequences. J Endod 2010; 36: 1226-9.
• 2. Card SJ, Sigurdsson A, Ørstavik D, Trope M. The effectiveness of increased apical enlargement in reducing intracanal bacteria. J Endod 2002; 28: 779-83.
• 3. McGurkin-Smith R, Trope M, Caplan D, Sigurdsson A. Reduction of intracanal bacteria using GT rotary instrumentation, 5.25% NaOCl, EDTA, and Ca (OH) 2. J Endod 2005; 31: 359-63.
• 4. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997; 23: 503-7.
• 5. Al-Sudani D, Al-Shahrani S. A comparison of the canal centering ability of ProFile, K3, and RaCe Nickel Titanium rotary systems. J Endod 2006; 32: 1198-201.
• 6. Kyaw Moe MM, Ha JH, Jin MU, Kim YK, Kim SK. Root Canal Shaping Effect of Instruments with Offset Mass of Rotation in the Mandibular First Molar: A Micro– computed Tomographic Study. J Endod 2018; 44: 822-7.
• 7. Marending M, Schicht O, Paqué F. Initial apical fit of K‐files versus LightSpeed LSX instruments assessed by micro‐computed tomography. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 169-76.
• 8. Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 35.
• 9. Bürklein S, Börjes L, Schäfer E. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with H yflex CM and R evo‐S rotary nickel–titanium instruments. Int Endod J 2014; 47: 470-6.
• 10. Çelik D, Taşdemir T, Er K. Comparative study of 6 rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. J Endod 2013; 39: 278-82.
• 11. Deepak J, Ashish M, Patil N, Kadam N, Yadav V, Jagdale H. Shaping Ability of 5 (th) Generation Ni-Ti Rotary Systems for Root Canal Preparation in Curved Root Canals using CBCT: An In Vitro Study. J Int Oral Health 2015; 7: 57-61.
• 12. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-5.
• 13. Bramante CM, Berbert A, Borges RP. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endod 1987; 13: 243-5.
• 14. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod 1988; 14: 273-7.
• 15. Gluskin A, Brown D, Buchanan L. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni–Ti rotary GT™ files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 476-84.
• 16. Wu M-K, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000; 26: 210-6.
• 17. Knowles KI, Ibarrola JL, Christiansen RK. Assessing apical deformation and transportation following the use of LightSpeed root-canal instruments. Int Endod J 1996; 29: 113-7.
• 18. Portenier I, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Preparation of the apical part of the root canal by the Lightspeed and step-back techniques. Int Endod J 1998; 31: 103-11.
• 19. Peters OA, Schonenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 221-30.
• 20. Glosson CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, Delrio CE. A Comparison of Root-Canal Preparations Using Ni-Ti Hand, Ni-Ti Engine-Driven, and K-Flex Endodontic Instruments. J Endod 1995; 21: 146-51.
• 21. Hulsmann M, Herbst U, Schafers F. Comparative study of root-canal preparation using Lightspeed and Quantec SC rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 748-56.
• 22. Versumer J, Hulsmann M, Schafers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation using Profile .04 and Lightspeed rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 37-46.
• 23. Basrani B, Roth K, Sas G, Kishen A, Peters OA. Torsional profiles of new and used Revo-S rotary instruments: an in vitro study. J Endod 2011; 37: 989-92.
• 24. Hashem AAR, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RA, Foda MY, Omar GAF. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary NiTi shaping systems. J Endod 2012; 38: 996-1000.
• 25. Elsherief SM, Zayet MK, Hamouda IM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res 2013; 27: 326.
• 26. Vallaeys K, Chevalier V, Arbab-Chirani R. Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo-S™, assessed by micro-computed tomography. Odontology 2016; 104: 83-8.
• 27. Iqbal MK, Banfield B, Lavorini A, Bachstein B. A comparison of LightSpeed LS1 and LightSpeed LSX NiTi rotary instruments in apical transportation and length control in simulated root canals. J Endod 2007; 33: 268-71.
• 28. Portenier I, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Preparation of the apical part of the root canal by the Lightspeed and step-back techniques. Int Endod J 1998; 31: 103-11.
• 29. Hema BS, Chandu GS, Shiraguppi VL. Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Root Canal Surfaces Prepared with LightSpeed & Endowave Rotary System. J Clin Diagn Res 2014; 8: ZC35-8.
• 30. Weiger R, Bruckner M, ElAyouti A, Lost C. Preparation of curved root canals with rotary FlexMaster instruments compared to Lightspeed instruments and NiTi hand files. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 483-90.
• 31. Bechelli C, Zecchi Orlandini S, Colafranceschi M. Scanning electron microscope study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus Lightspeed instrumentation. Int Endod J 1999; 32: 484-93.
• 32. Hema BS, Chandu GS, Shiraguppi VL. Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of root canal surfaces prepared with three rotary endodontic systems: Lightspeed, ProTaper and EndoWave. Niger J Clin Pract 2015; 18: 130-6.
• 33. Arslan H, Karataş E, Capar ID, Özsu D, Doğanay E. Effect of ProTaper Universal, Endoflare, Revo-S, HyFlex coronal flaring instruments, and Gates Glidden drills on crack formation. J Endod 2014; 40: 1681-3.
• 34. Pedulla E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Pappalardo A, Rapisarda E. Cyclic fatigue resistance of three different nickel-titanium instruments after immersion in sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 2011; 37: 1139-42.
• 35. Ahmetoglu F, Keles A, Simsek N, Ocak MS, Yologlu S. Comparative evaluation of root canal preparations of maxillary first molars with self‐adjusting file, reciproc single file, and revo‐s rotary file: A micro‐computed tomography study. Scanning 2015; 37: 218-25.
• 36. Kuştarcı A, Er K. Efficacy of laser activated irrigation on apically extruded debris with different preparation systems. Photomed Laser Surg 2015; 33: 384-9.
• 37. Askerbeyli Örs S, Serper A. Influence of nickel‐titanium rotary systems with varying tapers on the biomechanical behaviour of maxillary first premolars under occlusal forces: a finite element analysis study. Int Endod J 2018; 51: 529-40.
• 38. Pedullà E, Corsentino G, Ambu E, Rovai F, Campedelli F, Rapisarda S, et al. Influence of continuous rotation or reciprocation of Optimum Torque Reverse motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of nickel‐titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2018; 51: 522-8.
• 39. Lopes DS, Pessoa MA, Aguiar CM. Assessment of the Centralization of Root Canal Preparation with Rotary Systems. Acta Stomatol Croat 2016; 50: 242-50.
• 40. Keleş A, Alçin H, Sousa-Neto MD, Versiani MA. Supplementary steps for removing hard tissue debris from isthmus-containing canal systems. J Endod 2016; 42: 1677-82.
• 41. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Beltrami R, Bianchi S. Cleaning effectiveness of three niti rotary instruments: a focus on biomaterial properties. J Funct Biomater 2015; 6: 66-76.
• 42. Deka A, Bhuyan A, Bhuyan D. A comparative evaluation of root canal area increase using three different nickel-titanium rotary systems: An ex vivo cone-beam computed tomographic analysis. Contemp Clin Dent 2015; 6: 79.
• 43. Zeng Y, Gu L, Cai Y, Chen D, Wei X. In vitro study of shaping ability of single-file techniques in curved canals. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2014; 49: 657- 61.
• 44. Al-Sudani D, Almalki M, Al-Shahrani S, Ahlquist M. Geometric Analysis of Maxillary First Premolar Prepared by two Nickel-titanium rotary Instruments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2014; 15: 174.
• 45. Capar ID, Ertas H, Arslan H. Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of nickel-titanium coronal flaring instruments. J Endod 2014; 40: 1182-5.