Abstract
This study assessed 3 endodontic motors, X-Smart Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), VDW.Silver Reciproc (VDW GmbH, München, Germany) and, iRoot (Bassi Endodontics, Belo Horizonte, Brazil) in 2 different reciprocating settings. The movements evaluated were 170° in counter-clockwise (CCW) and 50° in clockwise (CW) at 350 RPM, and 150° CCW and 30° CW at 300 RPM. For the X-Smart Plus and VDW Silver the settings used were the ones in the motor library. For the iRoot, the motor was adjusted to the angles of the study. A customized optic target was attached to the contra-angle of the motor and the movements were recorded with a high-resolution camera (K2 DistaMaxTM Long-Distance Microscope System, Infinity Photo-Optical Company, Colorado, EUA) at 2,400 frames per second (FPS). The images were analyzed with the Vision Research software (Inc. Headquarters, Wayne, New Jersey, EUA). The following kinematic parameters were assessed: CCW angle, CW angle, speed (RPM) at both directions, and, standstill time at each change of directions. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis (method of Dunn) were used at a significant level of 5%. There was no statistically significant difference among the motors at the 150°/30° setting (P > .05); the iRoot was the least reliable at the 170°/50° setting for CCW angle, speed, and net angle parameters (P < 0.05). The standstill time of all motors in both directions was identical. None of the motors were able to reproduce faithfully the set movements. The iRoot motor presented a higher discrepancy when compared to X-Smart and VDW Silver.
Key Words:
Reciprocating; endodontic motor; kinematics; video analysis
Thumbnail
Thumbnail
