A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF APICAL TRANSPORTATION AND STRAIGHTENING OF TWO ROTARY NICKEL-TITANIUM SYSTEMS WHEN USING FINAL APICAL BRUSHING

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Assistant lecturer, Endodontics, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

2 Professor of Endodontics, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

3 Assistant Professor of Endodontics, Department of Conservative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Alexandria University, Alexandria, Egypt

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Apical transportation results in an inadequately clean apical area and makes apical seal more difficult thus affecting the final outcome and may lead to failure. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare between the effect of two rotary nickel titanium systems after using final apical strokes on canal transportation and apical straightening of the canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mesiobuccal canals of extracted mandibular first molars with root canal curvature angle (25 to 45 degree) were selected. Canals were divided into two groups (n=30). In group I canals were prepared with OneShape file, while in group II, canals were prepared with Revo-S system. Each group was then sub-divided into two sub-groups according to the motion used (pecking or circumferential filing). Sub group Ia (OneShape file) and sub group Ib (Revo-S system) were prepared with pecking motion while sub group II an and sub group II b were prepared with circumferential filing motion. A radiographic platform was used to obtain accurate radiographs. All specimens were radiographed from proximal and mesiodistal views. To measure apical transportation, the pre and post-instrumentation radiographs were exported from the Kodak software into Photoshop program. Then a grading system was used to assess the amount of transportation. Based on apical curvature measured before and after instrumentation (using Image J program), canal straightening was determined as the difference between these two measurements. RESULTS: Regarding apical transportation, no statistical significance was found between both groups and the sub groups. Apical straightening was evaluated, and no statistical significance was found between the groups. However, circumferential filing produced more straightening. CONCLUSIONS: OneShape file and Revo-S system maintained the original canal curvature with no significant differences between the files. Circumferential filing motion with both systems resulted in higher values of straightening when compared to pecking motion.

Keywords

References

1. GarciaM,SindreuF,MercadeM,BuenoR.Comparisonof apical transportation between Profile and Race rotary instruments. J Endod. 2012; 38: 990-2.
2. IqbalMK,MaggioreF,SuhB,EdwardsKR,KangJ,KimS. Comparison of apical transportation in four NiTi rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 2010; 36: 904-7.
3. OunsiHF,FranciosiG,ParagliolaR,Al-hezaimiK,Salameh Z, Tay FR et al. Comparison of two techniques for assessing the shaping efficacy of repeatedly used nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2011; 37: 847-50.
4. Hulsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005; 10: 30-76.
5. REVO S Brochure. 2009. Available at: http//www.micro- mega.com.
6. BonaccorsoA,CantatoreG,CondorelliGG,SchaferE,Tripi TR. Shaping ability of four nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2009; 35: 883-6.
7. ONESHAPE Files Brochure 2012. Available at: http//www.micro-mega.com.
8. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg. 1971; 32: 271-5.
9. Saber M, Nagy M, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of Protaper, I RaCe and Hyflex cm rotary Ni-Ti files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2015;
48: 131-6.
10.Hulsmann M, Styrga F. Comparison of root canal
preparation using different automated devices and hand
instrumentation. J Endod. 1993; 19: 141-5.
11. Paque F, Musch U, Hulsmann M. Comparison of root canal
preparation using Race and Protaper rotary Ni-Ti
instruments. Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 8-16.
12. Celik D, Tasdemir T, Er K. Comparative study of six rotary
nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. J Endod. 2013; 39: 278-82.
13. Burklein S, Benten S, Schafer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2013; 46: 590-7.
14.Peters OA, Peters CI, Schonenberger K, Barbakow F. Protaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J. 2003; 36: 86-92.
15.Hashem AA, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RM, Foda MY, Omar GA. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary ni-ti shaping systems. J Endod. 2012; 38: 996-1000.
16. Rhodig T, Hulsmann M, Kahlmeier C. Comparison of root canal preparation with two rotary Ni-Ti instruments: profile .04 and Gt rotary. Int Endod J. 2007; 40: 553-62.
17.Pasternak JB, Sousa-Neto MD, Silva RG. Canal transportation and centering ability of race rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2009; 42: 499-506.
18.Fayyad DM, Sabet NE, Abd El-hafiz EM. Computed tomographic evaluation of the apical shaping ability of Hero Shaper and REVO-S. ENDO Endodontic Practice Today. 2012; 6: 119-24.
19.Sydney GB, Batista A, De Melo LL. The radiographic platform: A new method to evaluate root canal preparation in vitro. J Endod. 1991; 17: 570-2.
20.Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 743-52.
21. You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2011; 37: 1296-300.
22. Aydin C, Inan U, Gultekin M. Comparison of the shaping ability of twisted files with Protaper and REVO-S nickel- titanium instruments in simulated canals. J Dent Sci. 2012; 7: 283-8.
23. Bürklein S, Börjes L, Schäfer E. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with Hyflex CM and REVO-S rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2014; 47: 470-6.
24.Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instruments: preliminary observations. Int Endod J. 2008; 41: 339-44.
25. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: part 2. Int Endod J. 2000; 33: 255-61.
26. Alattar S, Nehme W, Diemer F, Naaman A. The influence of brushing motion on the cutting behavior of three reciprocating files in oval-shaped canals. J Endod. 2015; 41: 703-9.
27. Jeon H, Paranipe A, Ha JH, Kim E, Lee W, Kim H. Apical enlargement according to different pecking times at working length using reciprocating files. J Endod. 2014; 40: 281-4.
28.Elsherief SM, Zayat MK, Hamouda IM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res. 2013; 27: 326-35.
29. Bürklein S, Börjes L, Schäfer E. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with Hyflex cm and REVO-S rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2014; 47: 470-6.
30. Saber M, Nagy M, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of Waveone, Reciproc and Oneshape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod. 2015; 48: 109-14.
31.Thompson S, Dummer P. Shaping ability of Lightspeed rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 2. J Endod. 1997; 23: 742-7.
32.Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004; 30: 559-67.
Alexandria Dental Journal
Volume 41, Issue 3
December 2016
Pages 238-244

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics