IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of Surface Defects in Protaper Next and HyFlex EDM Files after Single Clinical Use – A Stereomicroscopic Evaluation
Aims and Objectives: To compare the surface defects created on the ProTaper Next files versus Hyflex EDM files after single clinical use in molars.
Methodology: One hundred and fourteen NiTi files belonging to two contemporary file systems, HyFlex EDM (Coltene/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), were used to perform complete root canal treatment of a molar tooth. The files were autoclaved and marked for identification. The files were first visually examined and then analyzed under 25.6x magnification using a stereomicroscope (AM-4000, ALLTION, Guangxi, China) 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. Inter class coefficient was used to evaluate inter-examiner reliability. Level of significance was kept ? 0.01.
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 type of defect was not statistically associated with file type (p = 0.64). The odds of microscopic defects in HyFlex EDM is 2.64 times that of ProTaper Next. Inter-examiner reliability was substantial (ICC = 0.75). Conclusion: The incidence of fractures was low for both files. HyFlex EDM was associated with more defects.
Methodology: One hundred and fourteen NiTi files belonging to two contemporary file systems, HyFlex EDM (Coltene/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) and ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), were used to perform complete root canal treatment of a molar tooth. The files were autoclaved and marked for identification. The files were first visually examined and then analyzed under 25.6x magnification using a stereomicroscope (AM-4000, ALLTION, Guangxi, China) 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. Inter class coefficient was used to evaluate inter-examiner reliability. Level of significance was kept ? 0.01.
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 type of defect was not statistically associated with file type (p = 0.64). The odds of microscopic defects in HyFlex EDM is 2.64 times that of ProTaper Next. Inter-examiner reliability was substantial (ICC = 0.75). Conclusion: The incidence of fractures was low for both files. HyFlex EDM was associated with more defects.