Micro–computed Evaluation of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of 5 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems with Different Metallurgical Properties and Surface Treatments in Curved Root Canals

Objective: this study evaluated the ability of rotary (ProTaper-Retreatment and Mtwo-Retreatment) and reciprocating (Reciproc and WaveOne) systems in maintaining the original shape of the canal after root canal retreatment. Material and Methods: forty curved resin blocks with simulated root canals were prepared and filled. After that, each block was randomly assigned to 4 groups (n = 10) according to the retreatment system used. Stereomicroscopic images from each block were taken before and after retreatment procedures. Evaluation of canal transportation was obtained for all canal length and for 2 independent canal regions: straight and curved parts. ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test was used (P<0.05). Results: for all canal length ProTaper-Retreatment system showed lowest transportation values followed by Reciproc, MTwo-Retreatment and WaveOne systems (P <0.01). At the straight part, ProTaper-Retreatment system produced the lowest canal transportation followed by Reciproc and MTwo-Retreatment systems (P < 0.05); at the curved part, ProTaper-Retreatment and Reciproc systems produced the lowest canal transportation followed by MTwo-Retreatment system (P < 0.05). The WaveOne system resulted in the highest transportation values at both canal parts (P < 0.05). Conclusion: overall, ProTaper-Retreatment system produced less canal transportation in both portions of the simulated canals than the others systems tested after retreatment procedures.

Download Full-text

Comparison of Canaltransportation and Centering Ability of Protaper Next, Hyflex Cmandwave One System Using Cone - Beam Computed Tomography-an in-Vitro Study

Dental Journal of Advance Studies ◽

10.1055/s-0038-1672052 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 04 (02) ◽

pp. 088-093

Author(s):

Veerendra Uppin ◽

Vinaya Varghese ◽

Madhu Pujar ◽

Nirmal Kurian ◽

Hemant Vagarali

Keyword(s):

Computed Tomography ◽

Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽

In Vitro Study ◽

Cone Beam ◽

Root Canals ◽

Group 3 ◽

Canal Transportation ◽

Group 2 ◽

Curved Root Canals

Abstract Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of Rotary ProTaper Next, Hyflex CM and Wave One primary systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in curved root canals. Materials and Methods: Total 30 freshly extracted maxillary first molars having root canals with curvature between 10°- 20° were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. All teeth were scanned by CBCT to determine the root canal shape before instrumentation. In Group 1, the canals were prepared with ProTaper Next files, in Group 2 with Hyflex CM files and in Group 3 with Wave One files. After preparation, post-instrumentation scan was performed. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were obtained at 3 mm and 6 mm above the apical foramen and were compared using CBCT software. The amount of canal transportation and centering ability were assessed and statistically compared with one way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant test. (p<0.05). Results: All instrumentation systems used resulted in some amount of canal transportation. Data obtained suggested that Wave One files caused significantly lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than Hyflex CM and Rotary ProTaper Next files. Conclusion: The canal preparation with Wave One files results in lesser transportation and better centering ability than Hyflex CM and ProTaper Next rotary files in curved root canals.

Download Full-text