Análise do preparo e limpeza de canais longo ovais com sistema WaveOne Gold associado a diferentes protocolos de irrigação

• Ano de defesa: 2019
• Autor(a) principal: Kublitski, Prescila Mota de Oliveira
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Instituto Brasileiro de Informação em Ciência e Tecnologia; Brasil; Departamento 1; PPG1; IBICT
• Palavras-chave em Português: Odontologia; Microtomografia por Raio-X; Endodontia; Ultrassom; Microscopia eletrônica de varredura; CNPQ::CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: https://repositorio.cruzeirodosul.edu.br/handle/123456789/2095

It was proposed to evaluate, in vitro, the preparation and cleaning of oval long canals with WaveOne Gold® (WOG) system. A total of 210 newly extracted human lower incisors were selected. The specimens were submitted to patency to define the canal diameter and internal anatomical configuration and were distributed in four groups of WOG instruments in sizes / taper: Small (20 / .07 - WS), Primary (25 / .07 - WP), Medium (35 / .06 - WM), Large (45 / .05 - WL). The spares from this initial classification were randomized between the sequential groups, ie WS to WP, WS to WM and WS to WL. Each group consisted of 30 specimens. After the preparation, each group was subdivided (n = 10) according to irrigation and agitation in: control (C), E1 Irrisonic (I) and EDDY (E). The specimens of groups C were submitted to μCT for determination of pre and post preparation volumes, variation of this volume in mm3 . In these analyzes the root canal was considered by thirds and as a whole. After the agitation and irrigation protocol was established, the specimens were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), which allowed the cleaning verification of debris (magnification of 100x) and smear layer (magnification of 1000x) in the apical third. All analyzes were performed on SPSS® v. 25.0, with a significance level of 0.05. Initially, a descriptive analysis was performed, followed by normality tests (ShapiroWilk) and homogeneity of variance (Levene). Based on these assumptions, the OneWay ANOVA test was applied, followed by Games-Howell; and Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by Dunn's test. For the debris, the scores between the groups were correlated by the test of Spearman. As for the total volume, with single instrument (single-file technique), there was difference between WS x WL (p <0.001). For volume per thirds, WL was different from the others in the single-file technique (p <0.05), while WP x WS to WP and WM x WS to WM differed in sequential preparation (multiple-file technique) to equivalent instrument ( p <0.05); in the middle and apical thirds in the single-file technique, WS was equal to WP (p = 0.290), but different from the others (p <0.05). Considering the multiple-file technique, for volume variation per thirds and total, WS to WP presented better results (p <0.05). In groups C there was a significant difference between WL and the others, in the single-file technique (p <0.05). In groups I there was only significant difference in the multiple-file technique for WS to WP and WS to WL (p = 0.012). In group E, for multiple file technique, WS x WM and WP x WL were different from each other (p <0.05). In the intragroup comparisons, WP, E and C differed from I (p <0.05). For the smear layer, in the C groups single-file technique, differences occurred between WS x WM (p = 0.025), while in the multiplefile technique WS a WP x WS a WM had a value of p = 0.035. Among the single-file and multiple-file techniques up to the equivalent final instrument, the differences found were WP x WS to WP (p = 0.011). In groups I for multiple-file technique, p-values for the comparisons between WS to WL x WS to WP, and WS to WL x WS to WM, respectively 0.005 and 0.018, were observed in the sequential mode. In groups E there was only difference between single instruments WP x WS (p = 0.017) and WP x WM (p = 0.049). In the intragroup comparisons, with single instrument, for WS and WP, E and C differed from I (p <0.05). It was concluded that all the techniques promoted variation of volume after preparation, with best results for single-file technique in WP and WL. However agitation of the irrigation solution provided better cleaning ability. These findings reinforce the need for agitation techniques as coadjuvants in the cleaning of root canal systems, especially in cases of complex anatomy.