SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi / 2021 / Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 3

Evaluation of Radioopacity of Canal Files and Gutta-percha Using Digital Radiographic Technique and Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry

Kanal Eğeleri ve Gütaperkanın Radyoopasitelerinin Dijital Radyografik Teknik ve Enerji Dağılımlı X-ışını Spektrometresi Kullanılarak Değerlendirilmesi

Gözde Kandemir DEMİRCİ
Pages
205–211
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Discussion AND Conclusion: It was determined that the radiopacity values of all the materials were above the minimum standard

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the radiopacities of four different root canal files and gutta-percha with digital radiographic technique and energy dispersion X-ray spectrometry.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The data were compared statistically using One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey analysis(p=0.05).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Discussion AND Conclusion: It was determined that the radiopacity values of all the materials were above the minimum standard
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the radiopacities of four different root canal files and gutta-percha with digital radiographic technique and energy dispersion X-ray spectrometry. Methods: Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, Protaper and stainless steel files and gutta-percha cone were used.Digital radiographic images of specimens were obtained under standard exposure conditions.In addition, the chemical contents of the test groups were determined by energy dispersive X-ray spectrometry analysis.The relationship between the contents of the materials and the radiopacity values was evaluated. The data were compared statistically using One-way ANOVA and post-hoc Tukey analysis(p=0.05). Results: The radiopacity values of the samples were determined as Stainless steel file, Reciproc Blue, Protaper and gutta-percha from the highest to the least, and it was observed that they had radioopacity values compatible with the nickel, titanium, iron and zinc ratios in their contents. It was revealed that there was no statistical difference between the radiopacity values of Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, Protaper, and stainless steel files(p>0.05).The difference between all file groups and gutta-percha was found to be statistically significant(p<0.05). Discussion AND Conclusion: It was determined that the radiopacity values of all the materials were above the minimum standard

Özet

Giriş ve Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı dört farklı kanal eğesinin ve gütaperkanın radyoopasitelerinin dijital radyografik teknik ve enerji dağılımlı X-ışını spektrometresi ile karşılaştırmalı olarak değerlendirilmesidir. Yöntem ve Gereçler: Reciproc,Reciproc Blue,Protaper ve paslanmaz çelik eğeleri ve gütaperka kon kullanıldı.Örneklerin dijital radyografik görüntüleri standart ışınlama koşulları sağlanarak elde edildi.Ek olarak, enerji dağılımlı X-ışını spektrometresi analizi ile test gruplarının kimyasal içerikleri saptandı.Materyallerin içerikleri ile radyoopasite değerleri arasındaki ilişki değerlendirildi.Veriler One-way ANOVA ve post-hoc Tukey analizi kullanılarak istatistiksel olarak karşılaştırıldı(p=0,05). Bulgular: Örneklerin radyoopasite değerleri büyükten küçüğe doğru Paslanmaz çelik,Reciproc,Reciproc Blue,Protaper ve gütaperka şeklinde belirlendi ve içeriklerindeki nikel, titanyum, demir ve çinko oranları ile uyumlu radyoopasite değerlerine sahip oldukları görüldü.Reciproc,Reciproc Blue,Protaper,paslanmaz çelik eğe radyoopasite değerleri arasında istatistiksel olarak fark olmadığı ortaya kondu(p>0,05).Eğe gruplarının tümü ile gütaperka arasındaki farkın ise istatiksel olarak anlamlı olduğu tespit edildi(p<0,05). Tartışma ve Sonuç: Tüm materyallerin radyoopasite değerlerinin Uluslararası Standartlar Teşkilatı(ISO) ve Amerikan Ulusal Standartlar Enstitüsü(ANSIADA) tarafından tavsiye edilen minimum standart değerlerinin üzerinde oldukları tespit edildi

🔖

Cite This Article

DEMİRCİ, G. K. (2021). Evaluation of Radioopacity of Canal Files and Gutta-percha Using Digital Radiographic Technique and Energy Dispersive X-ray Spectrometry. Ege Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi, Cilt: 42 - Sayı: 3, 205–211. https://ajindex.com/articles/413901

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (15)

  1. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top 2005;10:30-76
  2. Bilgili D, Yilmaz S, Dumani A, Yoldas O. Retracted: Postoperative pain after irrigation with Vibringe versus a conventional needle: a randomized controlled trial. Int Endod J 2016;49:813
  3. Parashos P, Messer HH. Rotary NiTi instrument fracture and its consequences. J Endod 2006;32:1031–43
  4. Spili P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J Endod 2005;31:845–50
  5. McGuigan MB, Louca C, Duncan HF. Endodontic instrument fracture: causes and prevention. Br Dent J 2013;214:341–8
  6. Ungerechts C, Bardsen A, Fristad I. Instrument fracture in root canals - where, why, when and what? A study from a student clinic. Int Endod J 2014;47:183–90
  7. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988;14:346-51
  8. Kazemi RB, Stenman E, Spångberg LS. A comparison of stainless steel and nickel-titanium Htype instruments of identical design: torsional and bending tests. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90:500-6
  9. Cheung GS, Liu CS. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickeltitanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod 2009;35:938-43
  10. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa A. Comparative study of six rotary nickel–titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005;38:743-52
  11. Panitvisai P, Parunnit P, Sathorn C, Messer HH. Impact of a retained instrument on treatment outcome: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2010; 36: 775- 780
  12. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod 2000;26:161-5 13. Pedulla E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E. Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2013;39:258-61
  13. You SY, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Shon WJ, Lee W. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod 2010;36:1991-4
  14. Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y G, Haapasalo M. Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire nickeltitanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011; 37: 997–1001
  15. Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, et al. Phase transformation behavior an