Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of three different endodontic rotary systems (an invitro study)

Authors

  • Shakhawan Kadir Kadir Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Hawler Medical University, Erbil, Iraq.

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.15218/edj.2021.23

Keywords:

Protaper Gold, ProTaper Next, 2 shape, Centering ability, Canal transportation

Abstract

Background and objectives: one of the most important steps for root canal treatment is biomechanical preparation, which is the key stage of endodontic treatment with a predictive success factor if performed properly to prevent canal transportation. The aim of the present study is to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of Rotary ProTaper next, two Shape and Pro Taper gold systems in simulated root canals to find better instrumentation technique for maintaining root canal geometry.
Methods: Thirty simulated curved canals of 35° curvature manufactured in clear resin blocks were randomly assigned to 3 groups (n = 10) according to the system used for canal instrumentation: ProTaper next, two Shape and Pro Taper gold systems groups, Centering ability was evaluated; Pre‐and postoperative images of the canals were taken at a standardized position by a digital camera with a resolution of 25 mega pixel. An assessment of the shape of the canal was determined using Microsoft office Visio program version 11.
Results: The result showed that Protaper Gold produce less transportation and remained better center in the canal than ProTaper Next and 2 shape. The difference in transportation between the ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Next systems was not statistically significant differences (P > 0.05) while between ProTaper Gold and 2 shape and between ProTaper Next and 2 shape were significant differences (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Protaper Gold produce less transportation of the canal than ProTaper Next and 2 shape.

References

Vallaeys K, Chevalier V, Arbab‐Chirani R. Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni‐Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo‐S™, assessed by micro‐computed tomography. Odontology 2016; 104(1): 83‐8.

Staffoli S, Özyürek T, Hadad A, Lvovsky A, Solomonov M, Azizi H, et al. Comparison of shaping ability of ProTaper Next and 2Shape nickel-titanium files in simulated severe curved canals. Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia. 2018 Nov;32 (2):52–6.

Mamede‐Neto I, Borges AH, Guedes OA, de Oliveira D, Pedro FLM, Estrela C. Root Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Nickel‐Titanium Rotary Instruments in Mandibular Premolars Assessed Using Cone‐Beam Computed Tomography. Open Dent J. 2017 Feb 14;11:71–8.

McSpadden JT. Rationales for rotary nickel‐titanium instruments. Chattanooga, TN: NT Co; 1994.

Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and practice of endodontics. Elsevier Health Sciences; 2014: 210.

MicroMega. The 2Shape brochure. Available at: http://www.denta.be/pdf/MicroMega‐2shape‐ENG.pdf. 2017 (last accessed 10/2018).

Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. Endodontic canal preparation: New innovations in glide path management and shaping canals. Dent today. 2014;33:118–23.

Bakr DKh. Assessment of Novel Self‐Adjusting File System (In Vitro Study) Ph.D. thesis Hawler Medical University/ College of dentistry. 2013

Ingle, J. and Bakland, L. (2002) Endodontics. 5th Edition, BC Decker, Hamilton.

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., 37(9):613‐23, 2004.

Hülsmann M, Stryga F (1993) Comparison of root canal pre‐paration using different automated devices and hand instrumentation. Journal of Endodontics 19, 141–5.

Javaheri HH1, Javaheri GHA comparison of three Ni‐Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation. J Endod. 2007 Mar;33(3):284‐6.

Peters OA Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems. J Endod. 2004 Aug;30(8):559‐67

Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, et al. Phase transformation behavior and resistance to bending and cyclic fatigue of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal instruments. J Endod. 2015;41:1134–1138.

Uygun AD, Kol E, Topcu MK, et al. Variations in cyclic fatigue resistance among ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal instruments at different levels. Int Endod J. 2016;49:494–499.

Pitt Ford ,T.R.,Rhodes,J.S.,Pitt Ford,H.E.,(2002) Endodontic problem solving in clinical practice. Martin DuntizLtd;1st edition.

Webber J and Machton P (2001) protaper: taking the curve with ease. www.Dentisply.co.uk/articles.acessed on 12/5/2008.

Koch and Brave. Endodontic:Real word endo:design features of rotary files and how they affect clinical perform ance. www.oralhealthjournal.2002Feb;39‐49

Elnaghy AM Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel‐titanium rotary file Int Endod J. 2014 Nov;47(11):1034‐9.

Downloads

Published

2022-02-11

How to Cite

1.
Kadir SK. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of three different endodontic rotary systems (an invitro study). EDJ [Internet]. 2022 Feb. 11 [cited 2022 Oct. 3];4(2):175-81. Available from: https://pha.hmu.edu.krd/index.php/journal/article/view/137

Issue

Section

Original Articles