Preference of undergraduate students after first experience on nickel-titanium endodontic instruments
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
Objectives: This study aimed to compare two nickel-titanium systems (rotary vs. reciprocating) for their acceptance by undergraduate students who experienced nickeltitanium (NiTi) instruments for the first time. Materials and Methods: Eighty-one sophomore dental students were first taught on manual root canal preparation with stainless-steel files. After that, they were instructed on the use of ProTaper Universal system (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer), then the WaveOne (WO, Dentsply Maillefer). They practiced with each system on 2 extracted molars, before using those files to shape the buccal or mesial canals of additional first molars. A questionnaire was completed after using each file system, seeking students’ perception about ‘Ease of use’, ‘Flexibility’, ‘Cutting-efficiency’, ‘Screwing-effect’, ‘Feeling-safety’, and ‘Instrumentation-time’ of the NiTi files, relative to stainless-steel instrumentation, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. They were also requested to indicate their preference between the two systems. Data was compared between groups using t-test, and with Chi-square test for correlation of each perception value with the preferred choice (p = 0.05). Results: Among the 81 students, 55 indicated their preferred file system as WO and 22 as PTU. All scores were greater than 4 (better) for both systems, compared with stainless-steel files, except for ‘Screwing-effect’ for PTU. The scores for WO in the categories of ‘Flexibility’, ‘Screwingeffect’, and ‘Feeling-safety’ were significantly higher scores than those of PTU. A significant association between the ‘Screwing-effect’ and students’ preference for WO was observed. Conclusions: Novice operators preferred nickel-titanium instruments to stainless-steel, and majority of them opted for reciprocating file instead of continuous rotating system.
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to compare two nickel-titanium systems (rotary vs. reciprocating) for their acceptance by undergraduate students who experienced nickeltitanium (NiTi) instruments for the first time. Materials and Methods: Eighty-one sophomore dental students were first taught on manual root canal preparation with stainless-steel files. After that, they were instructed on the use of ProTaper Universal system (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer), then the WaveOne (WO, Dentsply Maillefer). They practiced with each system on 2 extracted molars, before using those files to shape the buccal or mesial canals of additional first molars. A questionnaire was completed after using each file system, seeking students’ perception about ‘Ease of use’, ‘Flexibility’, ‘Cutting-efficiency’, ‘Screwing-effect’, ‘Feeling-safety’, and ‘Instrumentation-time’ of the NiTi files, relative to stainless-steel instrumentation, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. They were also requested to indicate their preference between the two systems. Data was compared between groups using t-test, and with Chi-square test for correlation of each perception value with the preferred choice (p = 0.05). Results: Among the 81 students, 55 indicated their preferred file system as WO and 22 as PTU. All scores were greater than 4 (better) for both systems, compared with stainless-steel files, except for ‘Screwing-effect’ for PTU. The scores for WO in the categories of ‘Flexibility’, ‘Screwingeffect’, and ‘Feeling-safety’ were significantly higher scores than those of PTU. A significant association between the ‘Screwing-effect’ and students’ preference for WO was observed. Conclusions: Novice operators preferred nickel-titanium instruments to stainless-steel, and majority of them opted for reciprocating file instead of continuous rotating system.
참고문헌 (23)
- Siqueira JF Jr, "Bacteria in the apical root canal of teeth with primary apical periodontitis", Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 107, pp.721~726 (2009)
- Sakamoto M, "Molecular analysis of the root canal microbiota associated with endodontic treatment failures", Oral Microbiol Immunol, 23, pp.275~281 (2008)
- Walia HM, "An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files", J Endod, 14, pp.346~351 (1988)
- Cheung GS, "A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques", J Endod, 35, pp.938~943 (2009)
- Schäfer E, "Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study", J Endod, 30, pp.432~435 (2004)
- Setzer FC, "Comparison of apical transportation between two rotary file systems and two hybrid rotary instrumentation sequences", J Endod, 36, pp.1226~1229 (2010)
- Gergi R, "Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography", J Endod, 36, pp.904~907 (2010)
- Yared G., "Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations", Int Endod J, 41, pp.339~344 (2008)
- Ruddle CJ., "Canal preparation: single-file shaping technique", Dent Today, 31, pp.124~ (2012)
- Park SK, "Clinical efficiency and reusability of the reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments according to the root canal anatomy", Scanning, 36, pp.246~251 (2014)
- Jin SY, "Single file reciprocating technique using conventional nickeltitanium rotary endodontic files", Scanning, 35, pp.349~354 (2013)
- Martins RC, "Dental students' perceptions about the endodontic treatments performed using NiTi rotary instruments and hand stainless steel files", Braz Dent J, 23, pp.729~736 (2012)
- Arbab-Chirani R, "Undergraduate teaching and clinical use of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments: a survey of French dental schools", Int Endod J, 37, pp.320~324 (2004)
- Sonntag D, "Root canal shaping with manual stainless steel files and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students", Int Endod J, 36, pp.246~255 (2003)
- Peru M, "Hand and nickel-titanium root canal instrumentation performed by dental students: a microcomputed tomographic study", Eur J Dent Educ, 10, pp.52~59 (2006)
- Guelzow A, "Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation", Int Endod J, 38, pp.743~752 (2005)
- Schäfer E, "Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. part 1. shaping ability in simulated curved canals", Int Endod J, 36, pp.199~207 (2003)
- Hata G, "A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals", J Endod, 28, pp.316~321 (2002)
- Wolcott S, "Separation incidence of protaper rotary instruments: a large cohort clinical evaluation", J Endod, 32, pp.1139~1141 (2006)
- Generali L, "Canal shaping with WaveOne reciprocating files: influence of operator experience on instrument breakage and canal preparation time", Odontology, 102, pp.217~222 (2014)
- Kim HC, "Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne", J Endod, 38, pp.541~544 (2012)
- You SY, "Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro-computed tomography", J Endod, 37, pp.1296~1300 (2011)
- Bonessio N, "Validated finite element analyses of WaveOne endodontic instruments: a comparison between M-Wire and NiTi alloys", Int Endod J, 48, pp.441~450 (2015)