Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation
Objective: To compare the surface defects created on the ProTaper Next files versus Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use in molars. Methods: One hundred and fourteen Nickel-Titanium files belonging to two contemporary systems, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next, were used to perform complete root...
| Main Authors: | , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Pakistan Medical Association
2022-02-01
|
| Series: | Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association |
| Online Access: | https://www.ojs.jpma.org.pk/index.php/public_html/article/view/1056 |
| _version_ | 1797820770451193856 |
|---|---|
| author | Faizan Javed Momina Anis Motiwala Muhammad Farhan Raza Khan Robia Ghafoor |
| author_facet | Faizan Javed Momina Anis Motiwala Muhammad Farhan Raza Khan Robia Ghafoor |
| author_sort | Faizan Javed |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description |
Objective: To compare the surface defects created on the ProTaper Next files versus Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use in molars.
Methods: One hundred and fourteen Nickel-Titanium files belonging to two contemporary systems, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next, were used to perform complete root canal treatment of a molar tooth. The files were first visually examined and then analyzed under 25.6x magnification using a stereomicroscope for evaluation of surface defects. A photographic record was maintained and studied. Descriptive statistics were calculated for frequency of defects. Chi-square test was used to check the association between file and defect type. Odd’s ratio was calculated to check the strength of association between file type and microscopic presence of defects.
Results: Frequency of files showing defects was 14.9%. Deformation of the cutting edge was the most frequently seen defect type, found in 7.9% files. The frequency of fractured files was 3.5%. The odds of microscopic defects in HyFlex EDM is 2.64 times that of ProTaper Next.
Conclusion: Even after single clinical use, HyFlex EDM files are more likely to get microscopic defects on their surface compared to ProTaper files.
Continuous...
|
| first_indexed | 2024-03-13T09:43:11Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-1a84b2c4ae6a479bbe0a16aadd72cf74 |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 0030-9982 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-03-13T09:43:11Z |
| publishDate | 2022-02-01 |
| publisher | Pakistan Medical Association |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association |
| spelling | doaj.art-1a84b2c4ae6a479bbe0a16aadd72cf742023-05-25T04:23:07ZengPakistan Medical AssociationJournal of the Pakistan Medical Association0030-99822022-02-01720110.47391/JPMA.20-1056Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluationFaizan Javed0Momina Anis Motiwala1Muhammad Farhan Raza Khan2Robia Ghafoor3Department of Surgery, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, PakistanDepartment of Surgery, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, PakistanDepartment of Surgery, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, PakistanDepartment of Surgery, The Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan Objective: To compare the surface defects created on the ProTaper Next files versus Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use in molars. Methods: One hundred and fourteen Nickel-Titanium files belonging to two contemporary systems, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next, were used to perform complete root canal treatment of a molar tooth. The files were first visually examined and then analyzed under 25.6x magnification using a stereomicroscope for evaluation of surface defects. A photographic record was maintained and studied. Descriptive statistics were calculated for frequency of defects. Chi-square test was used to check the association between file and defect type. Odd’s ratio was calculated to check the strength of association between file type and microscopic presence of defects. Results: Frequency of files showing defects was 14.9%. Deformation of the cutting edge was the most frequently seen defect type, found in 7.9% files. The frequency of fractured files was 3.5%. The odds of microscopic defects in HyFlex EDM is 2.64 times that of ProTaper Next. Conclusion: Even after single clinical use, HyFlex EDM files are more likely to get microscopic defects on their surface compared to ProTaper files. Continuous... https://www.ojs.jpma.org.pk/index.php/public_html/article/view/1056 |
| spellingShingle | Faizan Javed Momina Anis Motiwala Muhammad Farhan Raza Khan Robia Ghafoor Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation Journal of the Pakistan Medical Association |
| title | Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation |
| title_full | Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation |
| title_fullStr | Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation |
| title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation |
| title_short | Comparison of surface defects in Protaper Next and Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use – A stereoscopic evaluation |
| title_sort | comparison of surface defects in protaper next and hyflex edm files after single clinical use a stereoscopic evaluation |
| url | https://www.ojs.jpma.org.pk/index.php/public_html/article/view/1056 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT faizanjaved comparisonofsurfacedefectsinprotapernextandhyflexedmfilesaftersingleclinicaluseastereoscopicevaluation AT mominaanismotiwala comparisonofsurfacedefectsinprotapernextandhyflexedmfilesaftersingleclinicaluseastereoscopicevaluation AT muhammadfarhanrazakhan comparisonofsurfacedefectsinprotapernextandhyflexedmfilesaftersingleclinicaluseastereoscopicevaluation AT robiaghafoor comparisonofsurfacedefectsinprotapernextandhyflexedmfilesaftersingleclinicaluseastereoscopicevaluation |