论文部分内容阅读
Introduction to the study:
Specific aims of this study-
-To compare the three contemporary systems of root canal preparation and find out which is the best.
-To find out the ideal root canal preparation system or system combination to be used in a clinical setup.
-Should reciprocation system and self-adjusting file system be made apart of the dental school curriculum and is it safe to do so.
Method:
An array of international open source articles published in respective international journals were reviewed and their data was analyzed to compare the three systems of root canal preparation on the basis of: the mechanical properties of the file systems-shaping ability of the files, centering ratio/centering ability, infection transfer, root canal debridement ability, the metallurgical properties of the file systems-instrument fracture, resistance to cyclic fatigue, the effects of the three file systems on the root canal anatomy and the final outcomes of the treatment on the whole-change in working length, straightening of original curvature of canal, canal transportation, presence of dentinal microcracks after preparation, amount of apically extruded dentinal debris and other factors-instrumentation time, effect of operator experience.
Results:
Statistical analysis showed there were significant differences between the hand file system,rotary file system and the reciprocation file systems on the basis of different factors of comparison. Also, it was found that reciprocation system and self-adjusting file system are completely safe and can safely be introduced into the dental school curriculum.
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of this study, differences were found between the three systems under comparison, with regards to various factors. The specific aims of this study were met completely and this study suggests that reciprocation file system is better than hand file system and rotary system and this suggests that more clinical research needs to be done in this regard, while also incorporating SAF. Another interesting fact that has emerged out of this study is that we can actually have2 file systems available in our daily dental practice, i.e., hand file system and reciprocation file system, wherein, hand file system can actually be used as an adjunct to the reciprocation file system in terms of a glidepath file or a pathfile, which has been proven to greatly increase the efficiency of reciprocation file systems. Moreover, reciprocation file system and self-adjusting file system can safely be introduced into the dental school curriculum.
Specific aims of this study-
-To compare the three contemporary systems of root canal preparation and find out which is the best.
-To find out the ideal root canal preparation system or system combination to be used in a clinical setup.
-Should reciprocation system and self-adjusting file system be made apart of the dental school curriculum and is it safe to do so.
Method:
An array of international open source articles published in respective international journals were reviewed and their data was analyzed to compare the three systems of root canal preparation on the basis of: the mechanical properties of the file systems-shaping ability of the files, centering ratio/centering ability, infection transfer, root canal debridement ability, the metallurgical properties of the file systems-instrument fracture, resistance to cyclic fatigue, the effects of the three file systems on the root canal anatomy and the final outcomes of the treatment on the whole-change in working length, straightening of original curvature of canal, canal transportation, presence of dentinal microcracks after preparation, amount of apically extruded dentinal debris and other factors-instrumentation time, effect of operator experience.
Results:
Statistical analysis showed there were significant differences between the hand file system,rotary file system and the reciprocation file systems on the basis of different factors of comparison. Also, it was found that reciprocation system and self-adjusting file system are completely safe and can safely be introduced into the dental school curriculum.
Conclusions:
Within the limitations of this study, differences were found between the three systems under comparison, with regards to various factors. The specific aims of this study were met completely and this study suggests that reciprocation file system is better than hand file system and rotary system and this suggests that more clinical research needs to be done in this regard, while also incorporating SAF. Another interesting fact that has emerged out of this study is that we can actually have2 file systems available in our daily dental practice, i.e., hand file system and reciprocation file system, wherein, hand file system can actually be used as an adjunct to the reciprocation file system in terms of a glidepath file or a pathfile, which has been proven to greatly increase the efficiency of reciprocation file systems. Moreover, reciprocation file system and self-adjusting file system can safely be introduced into the dental school curriculum.