Maximiliane Amelie Schlenz

The endodontic treatment of primary teeth is to maintain the function of the tooth free of symptoms until its physiological exfoliation. A critical factor for success is how quickly and effectively the root canal preparation can be performed. Therefore, the aim of this comparative in vitro study was to analyze the efficiency of two mechanical root canal preparation systems FM (FlexMaster) and HF (HyFlex EDM) to manual KF (K-file) on extracted primary molars. A total of 45 teeth were divided into three groups (n = 15): KF (#15–35), FM (04#30) and HF (25/~ OneFile). Root canal preparation was performed, and the preparation time was measured. All root canals were non-destructively analyzed by micro-computed tomography in the cervical, middle and apical thirds before and after preparation with regard to the parameters of canal transport (in μm) and centering ratio (0–1). Statistical analysis was performed at a 5% significance level using non-parametric tests. HF caused the lowest canal transport in the apical third (p = 0.008). The centering ratio value of HF was significantly higher in the middle third of the root canals than in the other two groups (p < 0.01). The mean instrumentation time was significantly higher for KF (6.67 min) than for FM (4.69 min) and HF (4.03 min, p < 0.01). HF can be recommended for primary molar root canal treatment.

This study aimed to investigate the transfer accuracy and required time for digital full-arch impressions obtained from intraoral scanners (IOSs) versus conventional alginate impressions (CAIs) in patients with multibracket appliances (MBA). Thirty patients with buccal MBAs (metal brackets, archwire removed) were examined using an established reference aid method. Impression-taking using four IOSs (Primescan, Trios 4, Medit i700, Emerald S) and one CAI with subsequent plaster casting were conducted. One-hundred-twenty (n = 30 × 4) scans were analyzed with 3D software (GOM Inspect) and 30 (n = 30 × 1) casts were assessed using a coordinate measurement machine. Six distances and six angles were measured and compared to the reference aid values (ANOVA; p < 0.05). Except for the intermolar distance, transfer accuracy was significantly higher with IOSs than with CAIs (p < 0.05). No such difference was found regarding the six angles. In patients with MBAs, digital impression-taking using IOSs can be recommended. For all measured variables except one, the transfer accuracy of IOSs was better than or at least equivalent to the data from CAIs. In addition, significantly (p < 0.001) less time was necessary for all IOSs in comparison to CAIs plus plaster casting.