Análise comparativa da ocorrência de desvio na trajetória do conduto radicular entre limas endodônticas manuais PRODESIGN M E PROTAPER

Abstract

The endodontic instruments used in the mechanical preparation of the root canals have undergone significant advances in the last decades. Nickel-Titanium instruments have become a keystone in the endodontist's arsenal because their flexibility allows the file to more accurately track the trajectory of the conduit when compared to stainless steel files. The objective of this study was to compare two manual instrumentation protocols used in the graduation of dentistry at the University of the State of Amazonas (UEA), namely ProTaper Universal and ProDesign M, to evaluate the occurrence of trajectory deviation and to compare work time. Thirty simulated channels were randomly distributed in two groups (n =15), according to the system to be evaluated: Grupo PT - ProTaper Universal system; PDM group - ProDesign M system. The trajectory deviation was evaluated with the aid of images obtained before and after instrumentation, where they were overlaid with the aid of the Photoshop CC program and evaluated with the help of Image J in millimeters 1, 2, 3 (apical third), 5 (middle third) and 7 (cervical third). To evaluate the time, the working time of each block was timed and the means, in seconds, of each system were compared. Both groups presented deviations in the trajectory of the conduit. The PT group presented greater deviation in the apical third, with a statistically significant difference in relation to the PDM group (p<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the groups when compared to the middle and cervical thirds, in which both groups also presented a deviation. The statistical difference regarding the working time of each group was not relevant. None of the systems tested, ProDesign M and ProTaper Universal, was able to follow the path of the pipeline faithfully, however the ProDesign M showed a smaller bias when compared to the ProTaper system. Future studies should still be performed with the ProDesign M system for its best clinical application