Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Dentin removal efficiency of six endodontic systems: A quantitative comparison

1992; Elsevier BV; Volume: 18; Issue: 12 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1016/s0099-2399(06)81330-0

1878-3554

Martine Hennèquin, Jean-Frédéric Andre, Germaine Botta,

Drilling and Well Engineering

The dentin removal efficiency of current endodontic systems, based on the amount of dentin removed in 1 mm of canal axial length, was determined for working times of 1 and 2 min. Six endodontic systems were compared: The Giromatic with Heli-Giro files, the Sonic-Air with Shapers, the Mecasonic with Shapers, the Cavi-Med with K files, the Cavi-Med with Shapers, the Excalibur with its own K files. Generally speaking, the efficiency of each device depends on the duration of instrumentation, on the type of file used, and on its mode of activation. For 1 min of instrumentation, the Mecasonic + Shaper was the most efficient system. For 2 min of instrumentation, the original adaptation of the Shaper on the Cavi-Med gave the highest activity. Concerning the files used in ultrasonics, the Shaper seems to be more efficient than the K file. As for the sonics, the Excalibur + file system gave results comparable to those of the Mecasonic + Shaper; both of these devices were twice as efficient as the Sonic-Air + Shaper. The dentin removal efficiency of current endodontic systems, based on the amount of dentin removed in 1 mm of canal axial length, was determined for working times of 1 and 2 min. Six endodontic systems were compared: The Giromatic with Heli-Giro files, the Sonic-Air with Shapers, the Mecasonic with Shapers, the Cavi-Med with K files, the Cavi-Med with Shapers, the Excalibur with its own K files. Generally speaking, the efficiency of each device depends on the duration of instrumentation, on the type of file used, and on its mode of activation. For 1 min of instrumentation, the Mecasonic + Shaper was the most efficient system. For 2 min of instrumentation, the original adaptation of the Shaper on the Cavi-Med gave the highest activity. Concerning the files used in ultrasonics, the Shaper seems to be more efficient than the K file. As for the sonics, the Excalibur + file system gave results comparable to those of the Mecasonic + Shaper; both of these devices were twice as efficient as the Sonic-Air + Shaper.