The Incidence of dentinal root defects caused by different Nickel Titanium instruments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.32828/mdj.v12i1.822Keywords:
Keywords: Dentinal defects, Cracks, NiTi instruments, Reciproc, Vertical root fractureAbstract
The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the effect of different Nickel Titanium instruments on the root dentin in term of dentinal defects. Seventy-five palatal roots of maxillary first molars teeth were selected for the study. Fifteen roots were left unprepared to serve as a negative control group; the remaining 60 roots were divided into four tested groups. Group (I) prepared using ProTaper Universal, group (II) prepared by EndoSequence, Group (III) prepared by ProTaper Next and finally group (IV) prepared by RECIPROC systems. After preparation the roots were embedded in clear acrylic and then sectioned at different levels (apical, middle and coronally) and examined under Stereomicroscope. Results: No cracks were observed in the negative control group, while dentinal defects were observed in roots prepared with ProTaper Universal, EndoSequence, ProTaper Next and RECIPROC systems (28.88%, 8.89%, 11.11% and 33.33% respectively). The results showed a non-significant difference between EndoSequence and Protaper Next groups and between ProTpaer Universal and RECIPROC groups (p > 0.05), ProTaper had a significant difference with EndoSequence and ProTaper Next groups (P < 0.05) While The RECIPROC group had a highly significant difference with EndoSequence and ProTaper Next groups (P < 0.01). Conclusion, all instrumentation systems used in this study created cracks in the root dentin. The EndoSequence and ProTaper Next instruments tended to cause least dentinal cracks compared with the ProTaper Universal and RECIPROC instruments.
References
Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005; 10 (1): 30-76.
Tamse A. Vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth: diagnostic signs and clinical management. Endod Top. 2006; 13 (1): 84-94.
Huang T-JG, Schilder H, Nathanson D. Effects of moisture content and endodontic treatment on some mechanical properties of human dentin. J Endod. 1992; 18 (5): 209-215.
Sedgley CM, Messer HH. Are endodontically treated teeth more brittle? J Endod. 1992; 18 (7): 332-335.
Reeh ES, Messer HH, Douglas WH. Reduction in tooth stiffness as a result of endodontic and restorative procedures. J Endod. 1989; 15 (11): 512-516.
Lertchirakarn V, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Load and strain during lateral condensation and vertical root fracture. J Endod. 1999; 25 (2): 99-104.
Sathorn C, Palamara JE, Messer HH. A comparison of the effects of two canal preparation techniques on root fracture susceptibility and fracture pattern. J Endod. 2005; 31 (4): 283-287.
Simon S, Lumley P, Tomson P, Pertot W, Machtou P. ProTaper®-Hybrid Technique. Dent update -London-. 2008; 35 (2): 110-120.
Kurtzman GM. Simplifying endodontics with endosequence rotary instrumentation. CDA. 2007; 35 (9): 625-632.
Yared G. Canal preparation with only one reciprocating in-strument without prior hand filing: A new concept. International dentistry - African edition. 2012; 2 (2): 78-87.
Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today. 2013; 32 (4): 94, 96-99.
Soares CJ, Pizi ECG, Fonseca RB, Martins LRM. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz oral res. 2005; 19 (1): 11-16.
Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, Wu MK, Shemesh H. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod. 2013; 39 (8): 1054-1056.
Milani AS, Froughreyhani M, Rahimi S, Jafarabadi MA, Paksefat S. The effect of root canal preparation on the development of dentin cracks. Iran Endod J. 2012; 7 (4): 177-182.
Lam PP, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength of tooth roots following canal preparation by hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2005; 31 (7): 529-532.
Kim HC, Kim HJ, Lee C, Kim B, Park J, Versluis A. Mechanical response of nickel–titanium instruments with different cross‐sectional designs during shaping of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2009; 42 (7): 593-602.
Al-Zaka IM. The effects of canal preparation by different NiTi rotary instruments and reciprocating WaveOne file on the incidence of dentinal defects. MDJ. 2012; 9 (2): 137-142.
Williamson AE, Sandor AJ, Justman BC. A comparison of three nickel titanium rotary systems, EndoSequence, ProTaper universal, and profile GT, for canal-cleaning ability. J Endod. 2009; 35 (1): 107-109.
Peters O, Morgental R, Schulze K, Paqué F, Kopper P, Vier‐Pelisser F. Determining cutting efficiency of nickel‐titanium coronal flaring instruments used in lateral action. Int Endod J. 2014; 47 (6): 505-513.
Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Uysal B. Effects of ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex Instruments on Crack Formation in Dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40 (9): 1482-1484.
Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single‐file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: RECIPROC and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012; 45 (5): 449-461.
Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schafer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2013; 39 (4): 501-504.
Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H, Ertas ET. Comparative Study of Different Novel Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems for Root Canal Preparation in Severely Curved Root Canals. J Endod. 2014; 40 (6): 852-856.
Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, Zgheib C, Arbab-Chirani R, Naaman A. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2014; In press, available online in: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/iej.12296/full.
Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012; 38 (6): 850-852.
De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B, Di Giorgi K, Fidel RAS, Luna AS. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 2010; 110 (3): 390-394.
Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kim BM. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod. 2010; 36 (7): 1195-1199.
Bier CA, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35 (2): 236-238.
Kishen A. Mechanisms and risk factors for fracture predilection in endodontically treated teeth. Endod Top. 2006; 13 (1): 57-83.
Sathorn C, Palamara JE, Palamara D, Messer HH. Effect of root canal size and external root surface morphology on fracture susceptibility and pattern: a finite element analysis. J Endod. 2005; 31 (4): 288-292.
Medha A, Patil S, Hoshing U, Bandekar S. Evaluation of Forces Generated on Three Different Rotary File Systems in Apical Third of Root Canal using Finite Element Analysis. JCDR. 2014; 8 (1): 243-246.
Bernardes RA, Rocha EA, Duarte MAH, Vivan RR, Gomes de Moraes I, Bramante AS, de Azevedo JR. Root canal area increase promoted by the EndoSequence and ProTaper systems: comparison by computed tomography. J Endod. 2010; 36 (7): 1179-1182.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
