Sang Won Kwak1, Gary Shun-Pan Cheung2, Jung-Hong Ha3, Sung Kyo Kim3, Hyojin Lee4, Hyeon-Cheol Kim1. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute, Yangsan, Korea. 2. Area of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China. 3. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University, Daegu, Korea. 4. Climate Research Department, APEC Climate Center, Busan, Korea.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare two nickel-titanium systems (rotary vs. reciprocating) for their acceptance by undergraduate students who experienced nickel-titanium (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', 'Screwing-effect', 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.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare two nickel-titanium systems (rotary vs. reciprocating) for their acceptance by undergraduate students who experienced nickel-titanium (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', 'Screwing-effect', 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.
Authors: N Bonessio; E S J Pereira; G Lomiento; A Arias; M G A Bahia; V T L Buono; O A Peters Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2014-07-12 Impact factor: 5.264
Authors: Gabriele Miccoli; Gianfranco Gaimari; Marco Seracchiani; Antonio Morese; Tatyana Khrenova; Dario Di Nardo Journal: Ann Stomatol (Roma) Date: 2017-11-08