Evaluation of shaping performance and surface changes of two different minimally invasive shaping file systems used in resin blocks

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorÖzata, Merve Yeniçeri
dc.contributor.authorFalakaloğlu, Seda
dc.contributor.authorEskibağlar, Mehmet
dc.date.accessioned2025-02-22T14:13:34Z
dc.date.available2025-02-22T14:13:34Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.departmentDicle Üniversitesien_US
dc.description.abstractAims: This study aimed to compare the shaping ability of T-endo MIS and TruNatomy (TRN) file systems in J-shaped resin root canals and to investigate the deformation of the files after two acrylic block preparation and two sterilization cycles. Methods: Forty acrylic blocks were numbered, then four file groups (n=10) were established: T-endo MIS glider (15.04) + T-endo MIS Finisher (25.04) (first and second usage) and TRN Glider (17.02) + TRN Prime (26.04) (first and second usage). Preoperative and postoperative images after the root canal preparation of simulated acrylic blocks were taken for each sample, and superimposed. The amount of resin removed from both the inner and outer walls of the canal to the level of 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apical point was measured, and the amount of transportation was calculated. Additionally, the deformation of the files was examined under a scanning electron microscope before and after usage and sterilization process. Results: Tip deformation of TRN files increased with the number of uses (p=0.007). With the second use, the surface deformation of the MIS files increased (p=0.015). There was no difference in cutting-edge deformation in either file type according to the number of uses (p>0.05). There was no difference in transportation values between the MIS and TRN file systems at any level (p>0.05). The file systems did not show a significant difference in the amount of transportation between first and second use (p>0.05). Conclusion: When TRN (26.04) and MIS (25.04) NiTi rotary files were used twice on acrylic blocks, the amount of deformation did not differ. Both file types were similar in terms of transportation values.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.32322/jhsm.1315227
dc.identifier.endpage832en_US
dc.identifier.issn2636-8579
dc.identifier.issue4en_US
dc.identifier.startpage826en_US
dc.identifier.trdizinid1296379en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.32322/jhsm.1315227
dc.identifier.urihttps://search.trdizin.gov.tr/tr/yayin/detay/1296379
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11468/30087
dc.identifier.volume6en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakTR-Dizin
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of health sciences and medicine (Online)en_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Ulusal Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessen_US
dc.snmzKA_TR_20250222
dc.subjectAcrylic blocken_US
dc.subjectcanal transportationen_US
dc.subjectfile deformationen_US
dc.subjectminimally invasive shapingen_US
dc.titleEvaluation of shaping performance and surface changes of two different minimally invasive shaping file systems used in resin blocksen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Koleksiyon

TR-Dizin İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu