4.5 Article

Fracture Incidence of WaveOne and Reciproc Files during Root Canal Preparation of up to 3 Posterior Teeth: A Prospective Clinical Study

期刊

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
卷 43, 期 5, 页码 705-708

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.12.024

关键词

Instrument fracture; posterior teeth; Reciproc; reciprocating movement; WaveOne

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Reciprocating instruments were developed to improve and simplify the preparation of the root canal system by allowing greater centralization of the canal and requiring a shorter learning curve. Despite the risk of instrument separation, using a reciprocating instrument in more than 1 case is a relatively common clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of Reciproc (R25; VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne (Primary; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) instruments according to the number of uses during the preparation of root canals in up to 3 posterior teeth. Methods: A prospective clinical study was conducted by 3 experienced specialists who performed treatment of 358 posterior teeth (1130 canals) over a period of 12 months using 120 reciprocating instruments, 60 of which were Reciproc R25 and 60 were WaveOne Primary. The motion used during instrumentation followed the recommendations of the respective manufacturers. After each use, the instruments were observed under a dental operating microscope at 8 x magnification. In the case of fracture or deformation, the instrument was discarded. Results: None of the instruments showed any signs of deformation, but 3 instruments fractured (026% of the number of canals and 0.84% of the number of teeth). All fractures occurred in mandibular molars (1 WaveOne Primary file during the third use and 2 Reciproc R25 files, 1 during the first use and the other during the third use). Conclusions: There was a low incidence of fracture when reciprocating files were used in up to 3 cases of endodontic treatment in posterior teeth.

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