Impact of Different Movement Kinematics on the Deformation of TF Adaptive Files | ||||
| Al-Azhar Journal of Dentistry | ||||
| Volume 2019, Issue 4, April 2019 | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/adjg.2019.42138 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
| Sabah M sobhy1; Mervat I. Fawzy2; Hagar A. Bastawy3 | ||||
| 1endodontic department,, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al –Azhar University,nasr city, Cairo | ||||
| 2Professor of Endodontics, Endodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al –Azhar University | ||||
| 3Associate Professor of Endodontics, Endodontic Department, Faculty of Dental Medicine for Girls, Al –Azhar University. | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| This study was designed to evaluate the effect of different movement kinematics on the deformation of TF Adaptive files using Dental Operating Microscope (DOM) and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). Materials and Methods: One hundred and eighty extracted human mandibular molars were selected with curved mesiobuccal canal (15º-35º). Thirty new sets of TF Adaptive files were divided into 3 groups according to the movement kinematics used (10 instruments each). Group I: 60 samples were instrumented with 10 TF Adaptive files in adaptive motion with TF Adaptive program Elements motor. Group II: 60 samples were instrumented with 10 TF Adaptive files in reciprocating motion with built-in reciprocating EndoEst motor mini, where the angle of reciprocation was set at 160° CCW and 41°CW. Group III: 60 samples were instrumented with10 TF Adaptive files in continuous rotation motion at 500rpm and torque 2 N/cm. Instruments were examined under DOM before usage and after each use for evaluation of deformation or fracture. Selected instruments from each group were evaluated using SEM. Results: there was no statistical significant difference among adaptive motion, reciprocating and continuous rotation motion in the mean deformation scores and percentage. The highest deformation scores and percentage was recorded in TF Adaptive instruments used with continuous rotation motion, however, there was no statistical significant difference. Conclusion: The innovated adaptive motion did not result in lower deformation of TF Adaptive files. Reciprocating motion produced less deformation in TF Adaptive files than did adaptive motion or continuous rotation motion, after preparing six root canals. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Adaptive motion; deformation; Dental operating Microscope (DOM); Movement Kinematics; TF Adaptive Files | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 29 |
||||
