Comparative study on three kinds of microtube extraction devices in vitro

doi:10.7518/hxkq.2020.02.009

Abstract

Abstract:

Objective This study aims to compare the efficiency of three kinds of microtube extraction devices, namely, instrument removal system (IRS), micro-retrieve and repair (MR&R) system, and MR&R system using modified microtube in removing separated instruments with different exposure lengths. Methods After a cross-section platform model was established, the IRS, MR&R, and MR&R modified microtube system with sidewall window reduced to 0.20 mm were used to retrieve various separated instrument models, and the differences in extraction effects were statistically analyzed by Chi-square test. The separated instrument models were divided into two groups: stainless steel and nickel-titanium instrument groups. In total, 23 instruments were tested for three times each. Results When the exposed length of separated instrument was 0.50 mm, the removal efficiency of the modified MR&R system group was significantly higher than those of the IRS and MR&R system groups (P<0.001). When the broken end of the fracture instrument was up to 1.00 mm, the success rates of the MR&R system and modified MR&R groups were significantly higher than that of the IRS group (P<0.01). No difference was observed among these three devices when the exposure length of separated instruments was 1.50 mm or higher. Conclusion The MR&R and modified MR&R systems have good removal effect when the exposed length of separated instrument is small.

Key words: instrument separation, microtube, instrument removal system, micro-retrieve and repair system

CLC Number:

R781.05

Yue Xin, Shen Jing, Zhang Haifeng. Comparative study on three kinds of microtube extraction devices in vitro[J]. West China Journal of Stomatology, 2020, 38(2): 160-165.

Figures/Tables 6

Fig 1

Tab 1

Fig 2

Fig 3

Fig 4

Tab 2

References 16

[1]	Iqbal M, Fillmore E . Preoperative predictors of number of root canals clinically detected in maxillary molars: a PennEndo Database study[J]. J Endod, 2008,34(4):413-416.
[2]	Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE , et al. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use[J]. J Endod, 2000,26(3):161-165.
[3]	Parashos P, Gordon I, Messer HH . Factors influencing defects of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use[J]. J Endod, 2004,30(10):722-725.
[4]	Wu J, Lei G, Yan M , et al. Instrument separation analysis of multi-used ProTaper universal rotary system during root canal therapy[J]. J Endod, 2011,37(6):758-763.
[5]	Ertas H, Capar ID . An in vitro analysis of separation of multi-use ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next instruments in extracted mandibular molar teeth[J]. Scanning, 2015,37(4):270-276.
[6]	Knowles KI, Hammond NB, Biggs SG , et al. Incidence of instrument separation using LightSpeed rotary instruments[J]. J Endod, 2006,32(1):14-16.
[7]	Yared G, Kulkarni GK . An in vitro study of the torsional properties of new and used rotary nickel-titanium files in plastic blocks[J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2003,96(4):466-471.
[8]	彭彬 . 牙髓病学[M]. 北京: 人民卫生出版社, 2015: 254-257.
	Peng B. Endodontics[M]. Beijing: People’s Medical Publishing House, 2015: 254-257.
[9]	Madarati AA, Watts DC, Qualtrough AJ . Opinions and attitudes of endodontists and general dental practitioners in the UK towards the intra-canal fracture of endodontic instruments: part 1[J]. Int Endod J, 2010,41(12):1079-1087.
[10]	Fu M, Zhang Z, Hou B . Removal of broken files from root canals by using ultrasonic techniques combined with dental microscope: a retrospective analysis of treatment outcome[J]. J Endod, 2011,37(5):619-622.
[11]	侯本祥 . 根管内折断器械的超声取出方法[J]. 华西口腔医学杂志, 2007,25(5):419-421.
	Hou BX . Ultrasonic techniques for removing broken instruments from root canal[J]. West China J Stomatol, 2007,25(5):419-421.
[12]	Lambrianidis T . Management of fractured endodontic instruments: a clinical guide[M]. Berlin: Springer, 2017.
[13]	高原, 徐佳蕾, 杨倩 , 等. 根管内分离器械的处理评估与取出策略[J]. 国际口腔医学杂志, 2016,43(3):249-259.
	Gao Y, Xu JL, Yang Q , et al. Evaluation and removal strategies of the broken instruments in the root canal[J]. Int J Stomatol, 2016,43(3):249-259.
[14]	Ruddle CJ . Nonsurgical retreatment[J]. J Endod, 2004,30(12):827-845.
[15]	高原, 杨倩, 黄定明 , 等. 一种组合式根管内折断器械取出装置[P]. 中国专利: 105167866, 2017-10-17.
	Gao Y, Yang Q, Huang DM , et al. A combined extraction device for separation instrument in root canal[P]. CN PAT: 105167866, 2017-10-17.
[16]	Katz A, Tamse A . A combined radiographic and computerized scanning method to evaluate remaining dentine thickness in mandibular incisors after various intracanal procedures[J]. Int Endod J, 2010,36(10):682-686.

锥度	器械类型	器械尖端ISO标准号数及断面直径
0.02	不锈钢K-file	15（0.25 mm）,20（0.30 mm）,25（0.35 mm）,30（0.40 mm）,35（0.45 mm）,40（0.50 mm）
	不锈钢H-file	15（0.25 mm）,20（0.30 mm）,25（0.35 mm）,30（0.40 mm）,35（0.45 mm）,40（0.50 mm）
	K3根管锉	20（0.30 mm）,25（0.35 mm）,30（0.40 mm）
0.04	K3根管锉	20（0.40 mm）,25（0.45 mm）,30（0.50 mm）
0.06	K3根管锉	20（0.50 mm）,25（0.55 mm）
变锥	Protaper S1	17（0.38 mm）
	Protaper S2	20（0.46 mm）
	Protaper F1	20（0.52 mm）

提取系统	不锈钢器械组,暴露长度0.50 mm				镍钛器械组,暴露长度0.50 mm				镍钛器械组,暴露长度1.00 mm
提取系统	取出	未取出	合计	取出率/%	取出	未取出	合计	取出率/%	取出	未取出	合计	取出率/%
IRS	0	36	36	0	0	33	33	0	24	9	33	72.73
MR&R	0	36	36	0	0	33	33	0	33	0	33	100
改良MR&R	30	6	36	83.33	24	9	33	72.73	33	0	33	100