DSpace logo

Bitte benutzen Sie diese Kennung, um auf die Ressource zu verweisen: http://repositorioinstitucional.uea.edu.br//handle/riuea/4546
Langanzeige der Metadaten
DC ElementWertSprache
dc.contributor.authorOliveira, Allex Araújo de-
dc.date.available2023-02-07-
dc.date.available2023-03-03T14:22:37Z-
dc.date.issued2019-06-12-
dc.identifier.urihttp://repositorioinstitucional.uea.edu.br//handle/riuea/4546-
dc.description.abstractThe endodontic instruments used in the mechanical preparation of the root canals have undergone significant advances in the last decades. Nickel-Titanium instruments have become a keystone in the endodontist's arsenal because their flexibility allows the file to more accurately track the trajectory of the conduit when compared to stainless steel files. The objective of this study was to compare two manual instrumentation protocols used in the graduation of dentistry at the University of the State of Amazonas (UEA), namely ProTaper Universal and ProDesign M, to evaluate the occurrence of trajectory deviation and to compare work time. Thirty simulated channels were randomly distributed in two groups (n =15), according to the system to be evaluated: Grupo PT - ProTaper Universal system; PDM group - ProDesign M system. The trajectory deviation was evaluated with the aid of images obtained before and after instrumentation, where they were overlaid with the aid of the Photoshop CC program and evaluated with the help of Image J in millimeters 1, 2, 3 (apical third), 5 (middle third) and 7 (cervical third). To evaluate the time, the working time of each block was timed and the means, in seconds, of each system were compared. Both groups presented deviations in the trajectory of the conduit. The PT group presented greater deviation in the apical third, with a statistically significant difference in relation to the PDM group (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups when compared to the middle and cervical thirds, in which both groups also presented a deviation. The statistical difference regarding the working time of each group was not relevant. None of the systems tested, ProDesign M and ProTaper Universal, was able to follow the path of the pipeline faithfully, however the ProDesign M showed a smaller bias when compared to the ProTaper system. Future studies should still be performed with the ProDesign M system for its best clinical applicationpt_BR
dc.languageporpt_BR
dc.publisherUniversidade do Estado do Amazonaspt_BR
dc.rightsAcesso Abertopt_BR
dc.subjectEndodôntiapt_BR
dc.subjectLimas endodônticaspt_BR
dc.subjectProTaperpt_BR
dc.subjectProDesignpt_BR
dc.subjectNíquel Titâniopt_BR
dc.titleAnálise comparativa da ocorrência de desvio na trajetória do conduto radicular entre limas endodônticas manuais PRODESIGN M E PROTAPERpt_BR
dc.title.alternativeComparative analysis of the occurrence of deviation in the trajectory of the root canal between manual endodontic files PRODESIGN M AND PROTAPERpt_BR
dc.typeTrabalho de Conclusão de Cursopt_BR
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-03T14:22:37Z-
dc.contributor.advisor-co1Carvalho, Fredson Márcio Acris de-
dc.contributor.advisor1Brum, Joelson Rodrigues-
dc.contributor.advisor1Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0257556911502691pt_BR
dc.contributor.referee1Brum, Joelson Rodrigues-
dc.contributor.referee1Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0257556911502691pt_BR
dc.contributor.referee2Bronzi, Evando da Silva-
dc.contributor.referee2Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0700335159235755pt_BR
dc.contributor.referee3Marques, André Augusto Franco-
dc.contributor.referee3Latteshttp://lattes.cnpq.br/0881446518841907pt_BR
dc.description.resumoOs instrumentos endodônticos utilizados no preparo mecânico dos canais radiculares sofreram avanços significativos nas últimas décadas. Instrumentos de Níquel-Titânio se tornaram uma peça fundamental no arsenal do endodontista, pois sua flexibilidade permite que a lima consiga acompanhar, de forma mais precisa, a trajetória do conduto quando comparadas com as limas de aço inoxidável. Este trabalho teve como objetivo comparar dois protocolos de instrumentação manual empregados na graduação de odontologia da Universidade do Estado do Amazonas (UEA), sendo eles a ProTaper Universal e a ProDesign M, para avaliar a ocorrência do desvio da trajetória e comparar o tempo de trabalho. Foram distribuídos trinta canais simulados aleatoriamente em dois grupos (n=15), de acordo com o sistema a ser avaliado: Grupo PT – sistema ProTaper Universal; Grupo PDM – sistema ProDesign M. O desvio da trajetória foi avaliado com o auxílio de imagens obtidas pré e pós-instrumentação, onde foram sobrepostas com o auxílio do programa Photoshop CC e avaliadas milimetricamente com o auxílio do programa Image J nos milímetros 1, 2, 3 (terço apical), 5 (terço médio) e 7 (terço cervical). Para avaliação do tempo, foi cronometrado o tempo de trabalho de cada bloco e comparadas as médias, em segundos, de cada sistema. Ambos os grupos apresentaram desvio na trajetória do conduto. O grupo PT apresentou maior desvio no terço apical, com diferença estatística significante em relação ao grupo PDM (p<0,05). Não houve diferença estatística significante entre os grupos quando comparados os terços médio e cervical, nas quais ambas também apresentaram desvio. A diferença estatística quanto ao tempo de trabalho de cada grupo não foi relevante. Nenhum dos sistemas testados, ProDesign M e ProTaper Universal, foi capaz de seguir a trajetória do conduto fielmente, entretanto a ProDesign M apresentou um menor desviou quando comparada com o sistema ProTaper. Estudos futuros ainda devem ser realizados com o sistema ProDesign M para sua melhor aplicação clínicapt_BR
dc.publisher.countryBrasilpt_BR
dc.relation.references1. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J. 2007; 52(1 Suppl): S52-63. 2. Lopes HP, Siqueira JF, Jr. Endodontia: biologia e técnica. 4ª ed. Rio de Janeiro: Elsevier; 2015; p. 237-354. 3. Kishen A, Peters OA, Zehnder M, et al. Advances in endodontics: potential applications in clinical practice. Journal of Conservative Dentistry: JCD. 2016; 19 (3): 199-206. 4. Thompson AS. An overview of nickel–titanium alloys used in dentistry. International Endodontic Journal. 2000; 33: 297– 310. 5. Easy Equipamentos Odontotológicos [homepage]. Belo Horizonte, MG; c1999 [acessado em 12 mar. 2018]. Disponível em: http://www.easy.odo.br. 6. Aguiar CM, Sobrinho PB, Teles F, et al. Comparison of the centring ability of the ProTaper™ and ProTaper Universal™ rotary systems for preparing curved root canals. Aust Endod J. 2013; 39: 25-30. 7. Aguiar CM, Mendes DA, Câmara AC, et al. Evaluation of the centreing ability of the ProTaper Universal™ rotary system in curved roots in comparison to Nitiflex™ files. Aust Endod J 2009; 35: 174–179. 8. Costa EL, Sponchiado EC, Jr, Carvalho FMA, et al. Desvio apical promovido por sistemas rotatórios reciprocantes: Estudo piloto em canais simulados. Rev Odontol Bras Central. 2017; 26(79): 32-36. 9. Nogueira TP, Bessa ERL, Nunes EC, Marques AAF, Garcia LFR, Carvalho FMA. Effect of glide path on transportation promoted by NiTi and M-Wire instruments. Braz Dent Sci. 2018; 21(1): 104-110. 10. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PMH. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics. 2005; 10(1): 30-76. 11. Schirrmeister FJ, Strohl C, Altenburger JM, et al. Shaping ability and safety of five different rotary nickel-titanium instruments compared with stainless steel hand instrumentation in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2006; 101(6): 807-13. 38 12. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988; 14: 346–351. 13. Gambarini G. Rationale for the use of low-torque endodontic motors in root canal instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol. 2000; 16: 95–100. 14. Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotatry nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2008; 34(2): 198-200. 15. Drago MA, Pereira RS. Instrumentos rotatórios Protaper Universal. Rev. Bras. Pesq. Saúde. 2012; 14(2): 78-82. 16. Shen Y, Zhou HM, Zheng YF, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2013;39(2):163-72. 17. Souza RE, Brosco VH, Moraes FG, Bramante CM, Moraes IG, Bernardineli N, et al. Avaliação clínica do sistema ProTaper na instrumentação de canais de dentes posteriores. Rev Inst Ciênc Saúde. 2006; 24(1): 53-7. 18. Marchesan MA, Arruda MP, Silva-Sousa YT, Saquy PC, Pecora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. Morphometrical analysis of cleaning capacity using nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation associated with irrigating solutions in mesiodistal flattened root canals. J Appl Oral Sci. 2003; 11: 55-599. 19. Coelho SB, Ferreira do Amaral ROJ, Leonardi DP, Marques-da-Silva B, Silva-Sousa YTC, Carvalho FMA, et al. Performance of three single instrument systems in the preparation of long oval canals. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2016; 27(2): 217-222. 20. Almeida MA. Análise do desempenho de limas manuais em NiTi para preparos de dentes posteriores – Relato de série de casos. [Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso]. Brasília: Faculdade de Ciências da Saúde da Universidade de Brasília; 2017. 53. Graduação em Odontologia. 21. Gonçalves AN, Frota MF, Sponchiado EC,Jr, Carvalho FMA, Garcia LFR, Marques AAF. Apical transportation of manual NiTi instruments and a hybrid technique in severely curved simulated canals. J Conserv Dent 2015;18:436-9. 39 22. Gonzalez-Rodrıguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. A comparison of ProFile, Hero 642, and K3 instrumentation systems in teeth using digital imaging analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004; 97(1): 112-5. 23. Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, Clark WA, Kovarik L, Buie C, et al. Metallurgical characterization of a new nickel-titanium wire for rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod. 2009; 35 (11): 1589-93. 24. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012; 45(5): 449-61. 25. Nina E, Berzins DW. Torsion and bending properties of shape memory and superelastic Nickel-Titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2013; 39(1): 101-104. 26. Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y, Haapasalo M. Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire Nickel-Titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2013; 37(7): 997-1001. 27. Testarelli L, Plotino G, Al-Sudani D, Vincenzi V, Giansiracusa A, Grande NM, Gambarini G. Bending properties of a new Nickel-Titanium alloy with a lower percent by weight of Nickel. J Endod. 2011; 37(9): 1293-1295. 28. Trope M, Bergenholtz G. Microbiological basis for endodontic treatment: can a maximal outcome be achieved in one visit? Endod Topics. 2002; 1: 40-53. 29. Shafer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Influence of diferente types of automated devices on the shaping ability of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments. Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 627-636. 30. Ruddle CJ. The ProTaper endodontic system: geometries, features, and guidelines for use. Dent Today. 2001; 20(10): 60-7. 31. Dummer PM, Alodeh MH, Al-Omari MA. A method for the construction of simulated root canals in clear resin blocks. Int Endod J. 1991; 24(2): 63-6. 32. Bryant ST, Thompson SA, al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments with ISO sized tips in simulated root canals: part 1. Int Endod J. 1998; 31(4): 275-81.pt_BR
dc.publisher.initialsUEApt_BR
Enthalten in den Sammlungen:ESA - Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso Graduação

Dateien zu dieser Ressource:
Datei Beschreibung GrößeFormat 
Análise comparativa da ocorrência de desvio na trajetória do conduto radicular entre limas endodônticas manuais PRODESIGN E PROTAPER.pdf1,52 MBAdobe PDFÖffnen/Anzeigen
Zur Kurzanzeige


Alle Ressourcen in diesem Repository sind urheberrechtlich geschützt, soweit nicht anderweitig angezeigt.