El objetivo de este estudio fue comparar la capacidad de remoción de material de relleno entre sistemas de limas reciprocantes y rotatorios. Este fue un estudio in vitro, experimental, prospectivo. Para esta investigación se utilizaron 30 piezas dentarias, premolares inferiores, y se dividieron en 2 grupos de 15 cada uno respectivamente. El primer grupo fue tratado con la lima Easy ProDesign Logic RT y el segundo grupo con la lima R 50 del sistema Reciproc. Como resultado se obtuvo que al comparar la remoción
del material de relleno entre los sistemas de limas reciprocantes y rotatorios hay un *P 0.197 indicando que no existe diferencia significativa entre ambos sistemas. Se llegó a la conclusión que los sistemas de limas rotatorias y reciprocantes no mostraron diferencias significativas a la remoción de material de relleno.
los sistemas de limas rotatorias y reciprocantes no mostraron diferencias significativas a la remoción de material de relleno al ser comparadas en los tercios cervical, medio y apical.
Las limas Easy ProDesign Logic RT lograron la remoción parcial del material en más de dos minutos.Y las lima R 50 del sistema Reciproc lograron la remoción parcial del material al 1-2 minutos en un 60%; mientras que, el 40% en 2 minutos a más. / The objective of this study was to compare the filler removal capacity between reciprocating and rotary file systems. This was a prospective, experimental, in vitro study. For this research, 30 teeth, lower premolars, were used and divided into 2 groups of 15 each respectively. The first group was treated with the Easy ProDesign Logic RT file and the second group with the R 50 file of the Reciproc system. As a result, it was obtained that when comparing the removal of the filling material between the reciprocating and rotary file systems there is a *P 0.197 indicating that there is no significant difference between both systems. It was concluded that the rotary and reciprocating file systems did not show significant differences in the removal of filling material.
The rotary and reciprocating file systems did not show significant differences in the removal of filling material when compared in the cervical, middle and apical thirds. The Easy ProDesign Logic RT files achieved partial material removal in more than two minutes. And the R 50 files of the Reciproc system achieved partial material removal in 1-2 minutes by 60%; while, 40% in 2 minutes or more.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:usat.edu.pe/oai:tesis.usat.edu.pe:20.500.12423/7282 |
| Date | January 2024 |
| Creators | Uribe Rocca, Viviana Corina |
| Contributors | Roncal Espinoza, Rosa Josefina |
| Publisher | Universidad Católica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo, PE |
| Source Sets | Universidad Catolica Santo Toribio de Mogrovejo |
| Language | Spanish |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/bachelorThesis |
| Format | application/pdf |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/embargoedAccess, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ |
Page generated in 0.0116 seconds