Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 81.35%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download PDF

Dental and Medical Problems

2016, vol. 53, nr 4, October-December, p. 476–482

doi: 10.17219/dmp/63946

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Creative Commons BY-NC-ND 3.0 Open Access

Properties of Mechanical Endodontic Instruments and the Quality of the Simulated Canal Preparation

Właściwości narzędzi maszynowych a jakość opracowania kanałów symulowanych

Agata Koprowicz1,A,B,C,D,F, Michał Łęski1,B, Halina Pawlicka1,E,F

1 Department of Endodontics, Medical University of Lodz, Łódź, Poland

Abstract

Background. Successful root canal treatment is associated with correct canal preparation. The quality of mechanical preparation depends on many factors. Researchers are still looking for the optimal methods and instruments for this purpose.
Objectives. The aim of the research project was to analyze the structure and work of mechanical files and the effect of simulated canal preparation with a single curvature.
Material and Methods. The study involved the reciprocal files: WaveOne® (Dentsply Maillefer) and Reciproc® (VDW) and the rotary file ProTaper Next® (Dentsply Maillefer). The study used 30 resin blocks (Endo-TrainingBloc®, Dentsply-Maillefer) of the artificial canals with a single curvature (ie. L-type canals). Photographs were taken before and after preparation. Using computer images were imposed on and measurement points set. The amount of material removed was determined as the distance between the measuring point and the wall of the canals after the preparation.
Results. The greatest mean changes in the working length were observed in the group Reciproc, the smallest in the group ProTaper Next. The highest average amount of material in all groups was removed from the inner wall of the central part of the canal. The greatest value was achieved in the WaveOne group. The lowest value was obtained in the group Reciproc. The best canal centralization was obtained at 8 mm from the apical foramen, the worst at 5–6 mm.
Conclusion. The tested instruments prepare simulated canals in a satisfactory manner, but do not provide optimum results. Therefore, preparing the canals of complex anatomy with a large file and a large taper carries the major risk of complications. Comparison of WaveOne, Reciproc and ProTaper Next system based on a sequence of files showed statistically significant differences.

Key words

mechanical instruments, simulated canals, canal centralization

Słowa kluczowe

narzędzia maszynowe, kanały symulowane, centralizacja kanału

References (31)

  1. Peters O.A., Schonenberger K., Laib A.: Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int. Endod. J. 2001, 34, 221–230.
  2. Dummer P.M.H., Alodeh M.H.A., Al-Omari M.A.: A method for the construction of simulated root canals in clear resin blocks. Int. Endod. J. 1991, 24, 63–66.
  3. 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.
  4. Gambill J.M., Alder M., del Rio C.E.: Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J. Endod. 1996, 22, 369–375.
  5. Schäfer E., Dammaschke T.: Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endodont. Topics, 2006, 15, 1, 75–90.
  6. Jafarzadeh H., Abbott P.V.: Ledge formation: Review of a great challenge in endodontics. J. Endod. 2007, 33,1155–1162.
  7. Eleftheriadis G.I., Lambrianidis T.P.: Technical quality of root canal treatment and detection of iatrogenic errors in an undergraduate dental clinic. Int. Endod. J. 2005, 38, 725–734.
  8. Young G.R., Parashos P., Messer H.H.: The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust. Dent. J. 2007, 52, 52–63.
  9. Berutti E., Negro A.R., Lendini M., Pascualini D.: Influence of manual preflaring and torque on the failure rate of ProTaper rotary instruments. J. Endod. 2004, 30, 228–230.
  10. Al-Omari M.A., Dummer P.M.: Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. J. Endod. 1995, 21, 154–158.
  11. Schäfer E.: Effect of four instrumentation techniques on curved canals: A comparison study. J. Endod. 1996, 22, 685–690.
  12. Bryant S.T., Thompson S.A., Dummer P.M.H., Al-Omari M.A.O.: Shaping ability of profile rotary nickel-titanium instruments with ISO sized tips in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int. Endod. J. 1998, 31, 275–281.
  13. Thompson S.A., Dummer P.M.H.: Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel–titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int. Endod. J. 2000, 33, 248–261.
  14. Schäfer E., Erler M., Dammaschke T.: Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int. Endod. J. 2006, 39, 196–202.
  15. Hartmann M.S., Barletta F.B., Camargo Fontanella V., Vanni J.R.: Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: A comparative study using computed tomography. J. Endod. 2007, 33, 962–965.
  16. Schirrmeister J.F., Strohl C., Altenburger M.J., Wrbas K.T., Hellwig E.: Shaping ability and safety of five different rotary nickel-titanium instruments compared with stainless steel hand instrumentation in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2006, 101, 807–813.
  17. Di Fiore P.M., Genov K.A., Lin L., Komaroff E., Li Y.: Nickel-titanium rotary instrument fracture: A clinical practice assessment. Int. Endod. J. 2006, 39, 700–708.
  18. Rödig T., Hülsmann M., Kahlmeier C.: Comparison of root canal preparation with two rotary NiTi instruments: ProFile.04 and GT Rotary. Int. Endod. J. 2007, 40, 553–562.
  19. Zhan Zhang L., Luo H., Zhou X., Tan H., Huang D.: The shaping effect of the combination of two rotary Nikeltitanium instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J. Endod. 2008, 34, 456–458.
  20. Yoshimine Y., Ono M., Akamine A.: The shaping effects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J. Endod. 2005, 31, 373–375.
  21. Kerekes K., Tronstad L.: Morphometric observations on the root canals of human molars. J. Endod. 1977, 3, 114–118.
  22. Paqué F., Peters O.A.: Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of long oval root canals in mandibular molars with the self-adjusting file. J. Endod. 2011, 37, 517–521.
  23. Haikel Y., Serfaty R., Bateman G., Senger B., Allemann C.: Dynamic and cyclic fatigue of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J. Endod. 1999, 25, 434–440.
  24. Aydin C., Inan U., Yasar S., Bulucu B., Tunca Y.M.: Comparison of shaping ability of RaCe and Hero Shaper instruments in simulated curved canals. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2008, 105, 92–97.
  25. Bürklein S., Hinschitza K., Dammaschke T., Schäfer E.: Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two singlefile system in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus MTwo and ProTaper. Int. Endod. J. 2012, 45, 449–461.
  26. Hülsmann M., Gressmann G., Schäfer F.: A comparative study of root canal preparation using FlexMaster and HERO 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int. Endod. J. 2003, 36, 358–366.
  27. De-Deus G., Brandão M.C., Barino B., Di Giorgi K.F., Rivail A.S., Luna A.S.: Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. Oral Radiol. Endod. 2010, 110, 390–394.
  28. Varela-Patiño P., Ibañez-Párraga A., Rivas-Mundiña B., Cantatore G., Otero X.L., Martin-Biedma B.: Alternating versus continuous rotation: A comparative study of the effect on instrument life. J. Endod. 2010, 36, 157–159.
  29. Song Y.L., Bian Z., Fan B., Fan M.W., Peng B., Gutmann J.L.: A comparison of instrument-centering ability within the root canal for three contemporary instrumentation techniques. Int. Endod. J. 2004, 37, 265–271.
  30. Pasternak-Júnior B., Sousa-Neto M.D., Silva R.G.: Canal transportation and centering ability of RaCe rotary instruments. Int. Endod. J. 2009, 42, 499–506.
  31. Paqué F., Musch U., Hülsmann M.: Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary NiTi instruments. Int. Endod. J. 2005, 38, 8–16.