A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

A Multimethod Assessment of a New Customized Heat-Treated Nickel-Titanium Rotary File System. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • The study compared three endodontic rotary systems: Genius Proflex, Vortex Blue, and TruNatomy, focusing on their design, metallurgy, and mechanical performance.
  • Key differences were found in the instruments’ blade numbers, helical angles, and flexibility, with TruNatomy being the most flexible and Genius Proflex having the best performance in certain tests.
  • Overall, while there were notable distinctions in some properties, all systems demonstrated similar shaping abilities and had no clinically significant errors, aiding clinicians in instrument selection.

Article Abstract

This study aimed to compare three endodontic rotary systems. The new Genius Proflex (25/0.04), Vortex Blue (25/0.04), and TruNatomy (26/0.04v) instruments (n = 41 per group) were analyzed regarding design, metallurgy, and mechanical performance, while shaping ability (untouched canal walls, volume of removed dentin and hard tissue debris) was tested in 36 anatomically matched root canals of mandibular molars. The results were compared using one-way ANOVA, post hoc Tukey, and Kruskal−Wallis tests, with a significance level set at 5%. All instruments showed symmetrical cross-sections, with asymmetrical blades, no radial lands, no major defects, and almost equiatomic nickel−titanium ratios. Differences were noted in the number of blades, helical angles, cross-sectional design, and tip geometry. The Genius Proflex and the TruNatomy instruments had the highest and lowest R-phase start and finish temperatures, as well as the highest and lowest time and cycles to fracture (p < 0.05), respectively. The TruNatomy had the highest flexibility (p < 0.05), while no differences were observed between the Genius Proflex and the Vortex Blue (p > 0.05). No differences among tested systems were observed regarding the maximum torque, angle of rotation prior to fracture, and shaping ability (p > 0.05). The instruments showed similarities and differences in their design, metallurgy, and mechanical properties. However, their shaping ability was similar, without any clinically significant errors. Understanding these characteristics may help clinicians to make decisions regarding which instrument to choose for a particular clinical situation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9369791PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma15155288DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

genius proflex
12
shaping ability
12
vortex blue
8
design metallurgy
8
metallurgy mechanical
8
highest lowest
8
005 differences
8
multimethod assessment
4
assessment customized
4
customized heat-treated
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!