Comparación in vitro del desgaste compensatorio de tres instrumentos de acceso (Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® y SX ProTaper®) utilizados en endodoncia

Abstract

Objective: This in vitro study aimed to compare preflaring of three instruments of access with Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® and SX ProTaper® used in endodontic treatment. Materials and methods: The preflaring was performed over 30 plastic upper molars (VDW, Germany) standardized which were divided into three groups of ten. Teeth were divided and implemented with Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® and SX ProTaper® . This procedure was done by a single trained operator. For measuring the root canals, crowns of teeth were cut transversely to UCA level with a fine diamond disc. Measures corresponding to 5 anatomical references were evaluated: remaining mesial of mesiobuccal canal, vestibular of mesiobuccal canal, mesial of distobuccal canal, vestibular of distal canal and distance between wall of distal of mesiobuccal canal with wall of mesial of distalbuccal canal. The results were analyzed in microns (µm) through a stereomicroscope with a Leica Microsystems 56D software. Results: Statistically significant differences between experimental groups were found. Introfile limes produce minor discrepancy of compensatory attrition. The main discrepancy was found in group 1 (Gates Glidden) unlike the other instruments. Conclusions: The IntroFile FlexMaster® limes present lower cutting angle which produce a conservative preflaring in comparison to Gates Glidden strawberries which produce a more aggressive preflaring.

Objetivo: El presente estudio in vitro tuvo como finalidad comparar el desgaste compensatorio de tres instrumentos de acceso con Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® y SX ProTaper®, utilizados en tratamiento endodóntico. Materiales y métodos: Se realizó el desgaste compensatorio sobre una muestra de 30 molares superiores de plástico (VDW, Alemania) estandarizados divididos en tres grupos de 10. Los dientes fueron divididos e instrumentados con Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® y SX ProTaper®, lo cual fue realizado por un solo operador capacitado. Para la medición de los conductos radiculares, se cortó transversalmente las coronas de las piezas dentales a nivel de UCA con un disco fino diamantado. Se evaluó las medidas correspondientes a 5 referencias anatómicas que fueron: remanente mesial del conducto mesio vestibular, vestibular del conducto mesio vestibular, mesial del conducto disto vestibular, vestibular del conducto distal y distancia entre la pared distal del conducto mesio vestibular con la pared mesial del conducto vestíbulo distal. Los resultados fueron analizados en micras (µm) a través de un estereomicrooscopio con software (Leica Microsystems 56D). Resultados: Se encontró diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre los grupos experimentales. Las limas IntroFile FlexMaster® producen menor discrepancia de desgaste compensatorio. La principal discrepancia se encontró en el grupo 1 (Gates Glidden) a diferencia de los demás instrumentos. Conclusiones: Las limas IntroFile FlexMaster® presentan menor ángulo de corte por lo que realiza un desgaste compensatorio conservador en comparación con las fresas Gates Glidden que realizan un desgaste compensatorio más agresivo. Objective: This in vitro study aimed to compare preflaring of three instruments of access with Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® and SX ProTaper® used in endodontic treatment. Materials and methods: The preflaring was performed over 30 plastic upper molars (VDW, Germany) standardized which were divided into three groups of ten. Teeth were divided and implemented with Gates Glidden, IntroFile FlexMaster® and SX ProTaper®. This procedure was done by a single trained operator. For measuring the root canals, crowns of teeth were cut transversely to UCA level with a fine diamond disc. Measures corresponding to 5 anatomical references were evaluated: remaining mesial of mesiobuccal canal, vestibular of mesiobuccal canal, mesial of distobuccal canal, vestibular of distal canal and distance between wall of distal of mesiobuccal canal with wall of mesial of distalbuccal canal. The results were analyzed in microns (µm) through a stereomicroscope with a Leica Microsystems 56D software. Results: Statistically significant differences between experimental groups were found. Introfile limes produce minor discrepancy of compensatory attrition. The main discrepancy was found in group 1 (Gates Glidden) unlike the other instruments. Conclusions: The IntroFile FlexMaster® limes present lower cutting angle which produce a conservative preflaring in comparison to Gates Glidden strawberries which produce a more aggressive preflaring.