Dental and Medical Problems
2015, vol. 52, nr 1, January-March, p. 54–61
Publication type: original article
Comparison of the Shaping Ability of Hyflex® CM™ Files with ProTaper Next® in Simulated L-Curved Canals
Porównanie skuteczności opracowania sztucznych kanałów w kształcie litery L dwoma systemami maszynowymi: Hyflex® CM™ i ProTaper Next®
1 Department of Endodontics, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
2 Member of Department of Endodontics Scientific Club, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland
Background. The aim of root canal treatment is to eliminate microorganisms from the root canal system. It consists of removing the infected pulp and shaping root canal system in order to facilitate irrigation and placement of a medicament or permanent filling material. In the last decade, many types of rotary root canal instruments have been introduced, varying in cross-section, blade and pitch design, and taper.
Objectives. The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of Hyflex®CM™ Files with ProTaper Next®.
Material and Methods. Twenty resin blocks with simulated L-curved canals were used in this experimental study and randomly divided into two groups (ten in each). The canals were prepared with Hyflex CM Files and ProTaper Next to an apical size of 25 according to the recommendations of the manufacturer by crown-down technique. Each instrument was used only once. Before and after preparation blocks were fixed in a constant position and photographed. To investigate the shaping ability of instruments the amount of material removed at the different levels in the root canal, the change of working length and transportation of apex were measured. The results were statistically analyzed using t-test.
Results. There was a trend for the ProTaper Next to remove less material from the inner aspects of the canals in apical area when compared with Hyflex CM Files. In the present study, a significantly greater change of working length took place after use of ProTaper Next (p < 0.01). The difference between the average apical transportation in the compared systems was also statistically significant (p < 0.01).
Conclusion. Within limitation of this study, both systems prepared canals without significant shaping errors and no instruments fractured. Hyflex CM Files and ProTaper Next maintained artificial curvature well and were safe. Hyflex CM Files are more flexible than ProTaper Next.
Hyflex CM Files, ProTaper Next, root canal preparation, resin blocks
Hyflex CM, ProTaper Next, opracowanie kanałów korzeniowych, bloczki żywiczne
- Hülsmann M., Peters O.A., Dummer P.M.H.: Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic Topics 2005, 10, 30–76.
- Schilder H.: Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent. Clin. North Am. 1974, 18 (Suppl. 2), 269–296.
- Calberson F.L., Deroose C.A., Hommez G.M., De Moor R.J.: Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int. Endod. J. 2004, 37 (Suppl. 9), 613–623.
- Esposito P.T., Cunningham C.J.: A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J. Endod. 1995, 21, 173–176.
- Thompson S.A., Dummer P.M.H.: Shaping ability of Profile.04 taper series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instrument in simulated root canals. Part 1. Int. Endod. J. 1997, 30, 1–7.
- Schäfer E., Lohmann D.: Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int. Endod. J. 2002, 35, 505–513.
- Alencar A.H.G. de, Dummer P.M.H., Oliveira H.C.M., Pécora J.D., Estrela C.: Procedural errors during root canal preparation using rotary NiTi instruments detected by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Braz. Dent. J. 2010, 21, 543–549.
- Shen Y., Zhou H.M., Zheng Y.F., Peng B., Haapasalo M.: Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nickel-titanium instruments. J. Endod. 2013, 39 (Suppl. 2), 163–172.
- Testarelli L., Plotino G., Al-Sudani D., Vincenzi V., Giansiracusa A., Grande N.M.: Bending properties of a new nickel-titanium alloy with a lower percent by weight of nickel. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 1293–1295.
- Johnson E., Lloyd A., Kuttler S., Namerow K.: Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J. Endod. 2008, 34 (Suppl. 11), 1406–1409.
- Schäfer E., Tepel J., Hoppe W.: Properties of endodontic hand instruments used in rotary motion. Part 2. Instrumentation of curved canals. J. Endod. 1995, 21, 493–497.
- Bertrand M.F., Lupi-Pégurier L., Médioni E., Muller M., Bolla M.: Curved molar root canal preparations using Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int. Endod. J. 2001, 34, 631–636.
- Kum K.Y., Spängberg L., Cha B.Y., Jung I.Y., Lee S.J., Lee C.Y.: Shaping ability of three Profile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J. Endod. 2000, 26, 719–723.
- Rhodes J.S., Pitt Ford T.R., Lynch J.A., Liepins P.J., Curtis R.V.: Micro-computed tomography: a new tool for experimental endodontology. Int. Endod. J. 1999, 32, 165–170.
- Bergmans L., Van Cleynenbreugel J., Beullens M., Wevers M., Van Meerbeek B., Lambrechts P.: Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int. Endod. J. 2003, 36, 288–295.
- Schäfer E., Vlassis M.: Comparative investigation of two rotary instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int. Endod. J. 2004, 37, 229–238.
- Rangel S., Cremonese R., Bryant S., Dummer P.H.M.: Shaping ability of RaCe rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. J. Endod. 2005, 31, 460–463.
- Weine F.S., Kelly R.F., Lio P.J.: The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J. Endod. 1975, 1, 255–262.
- Davis R.D., Marshall J.G., Baumgartner J.C.: Effect of early coronal flaring on working length change in curved canals using rotary nickel-titanium versus stainless steel instruments. J. Endod. 2002, 28, 438–442.
- Barankiewicz D., Pawlicka H.: Shaping ability of RaCe rotary instruments – laboratory study. J. Stomatol. 2011, 64 (Suppl. 5–6), 314–327.
- Łęski M., Radwański M., Pawlicka H.: Comparison of the shaping ability of two rotary files in simulated L-curved canals. Dent. Med. Probl. 2014, 51, 336–344 [in Polish].
- Saber S.E., Nagy M.M., Schäfer E.: Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals (Abstract). Int. Endod. J. 2014 (in press).
- American Association of Endodontists. Glossary of Endodontic Terms. AAE: Chicago, IL, USA, 2003, 7th ed.
- Weine F.S.: Endodontic Therapy. Mosby Co, St Louis 2006, 5th ed.
- Short J.A., Morgan L.A., Baumgartner J.C.: A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J. Endod. 1997, 23 (Suppl. 8), 503–507.
- Park H.: A comparison of Greater Taper files, ProFiles, and stainless steel files to shape curved root canals. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2001, 91 (Suppl. 6), 715–718.
- McSpadden J.T.: Mastering endodontic instrumentation. Chattanooga, TN, Cloudland Institiute, USA 2007.
- Schäfer E., Dzepina A., Danesh G.: Bending properties of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 96, 757–763.
- Kumar B.S., Pattanshetty S., Prasad M., Soni S., Pattanshetty K.S., Prasad S.: An in vitro Evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of two rotary nickel titanium systems (Twisted Files and Hyflex files) with conventional stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles by using spiral computed tomography. J. Int. Oral Health. 2013, 5 (Suppl. 5), 108–115.
- Zhao D., Shen Y., Peng B., Haapasalo M.: Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM, Twisted Files, and K3 instruments. J. Endod. 2013, 39 (Suppl. 3), 385–388.