ANALYSIS OF APICAL TRANSPORT AND CENTRALIZATION OF PREPARATION OF MECHANIZED NICKEL-TITANIUM INSTRUMENTS IN LOWER MOLARS: PROTAPER GOLD AND PRODESING LOGIC.
Endodontics; ProTaper Gold; Prodesign Logic; Root Canal Preparation; Computerized microtomography.
This research aimed to evaluate the morphological changes resulting from the instrumentation of 20 mesial roots of severely curved lower human molars, and to compare the ProTaper Gold (PTG) and Prodesign Logic (PDL) systems through the analysis of apical transport and centering capacity. beyond the time required for root canal preparation. The sample consisted of twenty anatomically paired lower molar mesial roots based on similar morphological dimensions using micro-CT evaluation (resolution = 19 µm) assigned to two experimental groups (n = 10) according to the system used for the preparation. of root canal: Group 1 - PTG and Group 2 - PDL. The specimens were then digitized again and the corresponding mesial canal images, pre- and post-instrumentation, were examined at three cross-sectional levels (3, 5 and 7 mm from the apical root end) to analyze transport and centralization. of the channel. The one-way ANOVA statistical test was applied in relation to apical transport, with no statistical difference between groups (p> 0.05). For the analysis of the centralization capacity, non-normal distribution was observed. The Mann-Whitney test was applied, where a statistical difference was observed between the groups at the 5mm level (p = 0.0410) where PTG presented lower centralization capacity when compared to the PDL group. There was no correlation between the variables in question. Regarding the effective time for instrumentation, the analysis showed that there was a statistically significant difference between the groups (p <0.0001), being PDL faster to reach the TC than the PTG group. All statistical procedures were performed with a significance level of 5%. Therefore, PTG and PDL had similar results in relation to the absence of channel transport, PDL presented greater centralization capacity when referring to the 5mm level and was faster than PTG because a shorter instrumentation time was required. In addition, all systems were safe for clinical use once following manufacturers' recommendations.