open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
Objectives: By introduced reciprocation motion file in dentistry, dentists benefit simple canal shaping procedure and timesaving. But, reciprocation motion generates uncomfortable vibration to doctors and patients. Because there was no study about this consideration, this study compared vibration pattern and power generated from reciprocation motion motor and conventional rotary motor. Materials & Methods: One conventional rotary motor; X-Smart (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland); and two reciprocating motors; WaveOne Motor (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and X-SMART PLUS (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland); were used in this study. Triaxial ICP Accelerometer (Model 356A12, PCB piezotronics, New York, USA) was attached on motor’s handpiece head, and was measured tri-axial vibratory acceleration with NI Sound and Vibration Assistant 2009 software (National Instruments, Texas, USA). Mean vibratory acceleration and maximum vibratory acceleration was measured on fixed position and handed position. The results of vibratory acceleration were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and multiple comparisons are made using Turkey’s test at p<0.05 level. Results: Reciprocating motors showed higher mean vibratory acceleration and maximum vibratory acceleration than conventional rotary motor (p<0.05). Between reciprocating motors, X-SMART PLUS had lower mean vibratory acceleration and maximum vibratory acceleration than WaveOne Motor (p<0.05). Conclusion: Reciprocating motors generate more vibration than conventional rotary motor. Further study about effect of vibration to dentist and patient is needed. And it seems to be necessary to make a standard about vibration level in endodontic motors.
1. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008;41:339-344.
2. De-Deus G, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010;43:1063-1068.
3. Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012;38:850-852.
4. Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (muCT). Int Endod J 2012;45:514-523.
5. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45:449-461.
6. Paque F, Zehnder M, De-Deus G. Microtomographybased comparison of reciprocating single-file F2ProTaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod 2011;37:1394-1397.
7. Gavini G, Caldeira CL, Akisue E, Candeiro GT, Kawakami DA. Resistance to flexural fatigue of Reciproc R25 files under continuous rotation and reciprocating movement. J Endod 2012;38:684-687.
8. You SY, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Shon WJ, Lee W. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod 2010;36:1991-1994.
9. Basri B, Griffin MJ. Predicting discomfort from whole-body vertical vibration when sitting with an inclined backrest. Appl Ergon 2013;44:423-434.
10. Huang Y, Griffin MJ. The effects of sound level and vibration magnitude on the relative discomfort of noise and vibration. J Acoust Soc Am 2012;131:4558-4569.
11. Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of nickel-titanium rotary instruments after clinical use with low- and hightorque endodontic motors. J Endod 2001;27:772-774.
12. Brand HS, Gortzak RA, Palmer-Bouva CC, Abraham RE, Abraham-Inpijn L. Cardiovascular and neuroendocrine responses during acute stress induced by different types of dental treatment. Int Dent J 1995;45:45-48.
13. Castellini P, Martarelli M, Tomasini EP. Laser Doppler Vibrometry: Development of advanced solutions answering to technology's needs. Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing 2006;20:1265-1285.
14. Rolke R, Rolke S, Vogt T, Birklein F, Geber C, Treede RD, Letzel S, Voelter-Mahlknecht S. Handarm vibration syndrome: clinical characteristics, conventional electrophysiology and quantitative sensory testing. Clin Neurophysiol 2013;124:1680-1688.