Análise de diferentes sistemas de lima única no preparo dos canais radiculares: estudo por microtomografia computadorizada

Abstract

Anatomical complexity is an obstacle to successful endodontic treatment, as it may allow many areas to remain untouched after root canal system preparation. In an attempt to remedy these problems, new instruments have been developed, such as Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper. The aim of the present study was to compare the performance of three single file systems, Reciproc, Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper in root canal preparation, in relation to the percentage of prepared walls, transportation and centralization of first mandibular molar root canals. For this, 30 mesial roots of mandibular molars were selected, paired according to morphological similarities, divided into 3 groups (n = 10) according to the instrument used and dividided into thirds (3, 5 and 7 mm) for transportation and centralization analysis. The results showed the highest percentage of unprepared walls by Reciproc Blue (35.1%) when compared to Reciproc (15.32%) and XP-endo Shaper (14.5%) (p <0.05). The XP-endo Shaper group had the lowest apical transport, followed by the Reciproc and Reciproc Blue group (p <0.05). Among the thirds, the 3 mm apical third had less apical transportation, followed by 7 mm and 5 mm (p <0.05). Root canal centralization showed significant difference between Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper groups (p <0.05), with Reciproc Blue being the best result. Between the thirds, there was a significant difference between 3 and 5 mm and 3 and 7 mm of the root apex, and 3 mm of the root apex was the best result of centralization. We can conclude that Reciproc and XP-endo Shaper exhibited greater prepared wall areas, while XP-endo Shaper showed the lowest apical transportation and Reciproc Blue better centering. The apical third of 3 mm of root distance was the area with the lowest apical transportation and, consequently, the best centralization.