4.5 Article

Higher Speed and No Glide Path: A New Protocol to Increase the Efficiency of XP Shaper in Curved Canals - An In Vitro Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 46, 期 1, 页码 103-109

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.10.014

关键词

Curved canals; glide path; micro-computed tomography; rotary instrumentation; XP-endo Shaper

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: This in vitro study compared the performance of the XP-endo Shaper (XP; FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) in curved canals when used with a higher speed (3000 rpm) without a glide path with the manufacturer's protocol. Methods: Twenty extracted mandibular molars with separate mesial curved canals were matched to obtain 2 standardized groups (n = 20). For the XP 1000 group, a glide path up to a size 15 hand file was performed followed by rotary instrumentation with the XP shaper at 1000 rpm, following the manufacturer's recommendations. For the canals in the XP 3000 group, the file was rotated at 3000 rpm after only negotiation the canal with a size 8 hand file (patency file). The operating time and the number of strokes taken to reach the working length (WL) and fit a 30/.04 gutta-percha cone to the WL were recorded. The shaping abilities were evaluated by micro-computed tomographic imaging and file deformation by scanning electron microscopy. Data were analyzed using analysis of variance and chi-square tests at a 5% significance level. Results: The XP 3000 group required less time and strokes to reach the WL (P < .05) and resulted in a higher percentage of adequate cone fit (P < .05). No difference was found between groups regarding the micro-CT parameters, except for the taper, which was larger in the XP 3000 group in the apical and middle thirds (P < .05). No difference was found regarding file deformation between the 2 groups. Conclusions: The suggested protocol for the use of the XP (3000 rpm without a glide path) appears to be more efficient than the manufacturer's recommended protocol to prepare curved canals in vitro.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据