دوره 10، شماره 3 - ( 6-1404 )
جلد 10 شماره 3 صفحات 175-168 |
برگشت به فهرست نسخه ها
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Guha P, Priscilla Antony D, Solete P, Arun N. Comparison of Remaining Dentin Thickness, Canal Transportation, and Canal Centering Ratio Using Three Different Rotary File Systems: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Analysis. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025; 10 (3) :168-175
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-821-fa.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-821-fa.html
Comparison of Remaining Dentin Thickness, Canal Transportation, and Canal Centering Ratio Using Three Different Rotary File Systems: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Analysis. . 1404; 10 (3) :168-175
چکیده: (17 مشاهده)
Background and Aim: This study evaluated the remaining dentin thickness (RDT), canal transportation (CT), and canal centering ratio (CCR) of three different rotary file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 153 extracted mandibular molars were evaluated. The working length was determined using CBCT before starting the experiment. A skilled dentist then prepared the root canals using three types of rotary files: ProFit S3, HyFLEX CM, and NeoEndo S. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans were analyzed to compare the results. One-way ANOVA and Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.
Results: ProFit S3 demonstrated a superior performance in preserving dentin thickness and maintaining canal geometry compared to HyFlex CM and NeoEndo S. In both MB and ML canals, at 6 mm and 9 mm, ProFit S3 exhibited significantly higher RDT (P≤0.007), less CT (P≤0.006), and better CCR (P≤0.01) than other systems. Among the remaining systems, HyFlex CM performed better than NeoEndo S for RDT and CT at these levels. At 3 mm, no significant differences were found for RDT or CT; however, ProFit S3 showed significantly better CCR than NeoEndo S (P<0.01) and HyFlex CM (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Among the tested systems, ProFit S3 resulted in the least change in canal volume, suggesting that it may be better at preserving the original shape of the root canal, as well as the surrounding dentin, compared to Hyflex CM and NeoEndo S.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 153 extracted mandibular molars were evaluated. The working length was determined using CBCT before starting the experiment. A skilled dentist then prepared the root canals using three types of rotary files: ProFit S3, HyFLEX CM, and NeoEndo S. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans were analyzed to compare the results. One-way ANOVA and Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.
Results: ProFit S3 demonstrated a superior performance in preserving dentin thickness and maintaining canal geometry compared to HyFlex CM and NeoEndo S. In both MB and ML canals, at 6 mm and 9 mm, ProFit S3 exhibited significantly higher RDT (P≤0.007), less CT (P≤0.006), and better CCR (P≤0.01) than other systems. Among the remaining systems, HyFlex CM performed better than NeoEndo S for RDT and CT at these levels. At 3 mm, no significant differences were found for RDT or CT; however, ProFit S3 showed significantly better CCR than NeoEndo S (P<0.01) and HyFlex CM (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Among the tested systems, ProFit S3 resulted in the least change in canal volume, suggesting that it may be better at preserving the original shape of the root canal, as well as the surrounding dentin, compared to Hyflex CM and NeoEndo S.
نوع مطالعه: Original article |
موضوع مقاله:
Endodontics
| بازنشر اطلاعات | |
 |
این مقاله تحت شرایط Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License قابل بازنشر است. |
