AVALIAÇÃO DAS CARACTERÍSTICAS SUPERFICIAIS DOS INSTRUMENTOS RECIPROC, RECIPROC BLUE E XP-ENDO SHAPER

Authors

  • Fernanda Kac Szmajser Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Veiga de Almeida, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Gabriela Hernandez Costa Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Veiga de Almeida, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Letícia do Vale Campos Simão Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Veiga de Almeida, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Carolina Oliveira de Lima Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Renata Antoun Simão Departamento de Odontologia, Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
  • Celso Neiva Campos Departamento de Odontologia, Universidade Federal de Juiz de Fora, Juiz de Fora, Minas Gerais, Brasil
  • Maíra Prado Faculdade de Odontologia, Universidade Veiga de Almeida, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brasil

Keywords:

Dental Instruments, Scanning Electron Microscopy, Surface.

Abstract

Introduction: The quality control of endodontic instruments is extremely important since defects and failures on their surface, during their manufacturing process, can compromise the preparation of root canal. Objective: this study evaluated the presence of defects and failures in the manufacturing process on the surface of Reciproc (R25), Reciproc Blue (RB25) and XP endo-shaper (XP) instruments by means of scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and Methods: In total, sixty nickel titanium instruments (n=20): R25, RB25 and XP were evaluated in the scanning electron microscope in three regions: 0mm (tip of the instrument), 4mm and 7mm of the tip, with a magnification of 100x. The images were evaluated in relation to the number of manufacturing faults (irregular border, groove, microcavity and burr) and by a system of scores, from 1 to 4, where 1 is no defective area and 4, more than five areas with defects on the surface. The data were submitted to statistical analysis using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests (p<0.05). Results: Regarding the analysis by regions, significant differences were identified in most of the instruments. Comparing the different instruments, no significant difference was observed for microcavity (p=0.76), irregular border (p=0.98) and burr (p=0.40). The R25 instrument showed a greater number of grooves compared to the others (p=0.0000*). RB25 showed higher scores than the R25 (p=0.0002) and XP (p=0.01) instruments. Conclusion: All evaluated instruments showed defects/failures in the manufacturing process.

Published

2020-12-31