| 모조 레진블락 근관에서 LightSpeed, ProTaper 및 Hybrid technique의 성형 효율 비교 |
|
강순일1, 곽상원2, 박정길3, 허복4, 김현철5 |
1부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보존학교실
2부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보존학교실
3부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보존학교실
4부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보존학교실
5부산대학교 치의학전문대학원 치과보존학교실 |
| Comparison of shaping ability using LightSpeed, ProTaper and Hybrid technique in simulated root canals |
|
Soon-Il Kang1, Sang-Won Kwak2, Jeong-Kil Park3, Bock Hur4, Hyeon-Cheol Kim5 |
1Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University
2Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University
3Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University
4Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University
5Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University |
|
|
| Abstract |
|
The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping abilities of LightSpeed, ProTaper-Universal, and hybrid technique using S-series of ProTaper-Universal and LigthSpeed. The 72 simulated root canals of J-shape were used and classified as flowing 3 groups according to the instrumentation methods; Group P of 24 canal blocks were prepared with ProTaper-Universal, Group L was prepared with LightSpeed, and Group H was prepared with hybrid technique (initial shaping with ProTaper-Universal SI and S2 and apical shaping with LightSpeed from #25 to #50). A second-year resident of Endodontic department prepared the resin block canals to apical size #50 (F5 in Group P). The time lapses for instrumentation and the reduction of root canal curvature after shaping were measured. The pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed to evaluate and calculate the increased canal width and apical centering ratio. The results were as followings: Group Land H showed significant less instrumentation time than Group P (p < 0.05). The ProTaper system showed greater reduction of root canal curvature and working length diminishment than other methods (p < 0.05). LightSpeed system showed best canal curvature preserving characteristics. The Group P had greater instrumented widths at all levels examined (p < 0.05). Group L and Group H showed lower centering ratio (ability to preserve the canal center; the lower ratio means the better canal center preservation) than Group P (p < 0.05). Group H had the lowest centering ratio at the 1 mm level. |
| Key Words:
LightSpeed;ProTaper Universal;Hybrid technique;Shaping ability;Centering ratio; |
|
PDF Links
Download Citation
