scholarly journals Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Apical Transportation and Centering Ratio of Protaper and XP-Endo Shaper Niti Rotary Systems in Curved Canals: An in Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasin Haji Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Calculated Data ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is important in an endodontic treatment. Canal transportation is a common procedural error in preparation of curved canals. This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and centering ratio of two rotary files in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: 44 extracted human mandibular first molars with mature apices and apical curvature of 10° to 30° were selected. The samples were randomly divided into two groups (n=22) with similar curvature. The canals were prepared with ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper file systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. CBCT images were captured using Cranex 3D CBCT system before and after root canal preparation, and canal transportation and centering ratio of the files at 3, 4 and 5 mm from the apex were calculated. Data were analyzed and compared between two groups using independent t-test at 0.05 level of significance.Results: The ProTaper Universal caused greater canal transportation and had lower centering ratio than XP-endo Shaper in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions at all levels from the apex. The difference between two groups regarding transportation was significant at all levels from the apex in buccolingual direction (P<0.05) except for 3 mm from the apex (P>0.05). The difference between two groups regarding centering ratio was not significant (P>0.05) in mesiodistal direction at all levels except for 4 mm from the apex (P<0.05). Conclusion:The ProTaper Universal causes greater canal transportation in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions than XP-endo Shaper.

scholarly journals Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of apical transportation and centering ratio of ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper NiTi rotary systems in curved canals: an in vitro study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasrin Haji Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Calculated Data ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is an important step of endodontic treatment. Canal transportation is a common procedural error in preparation of curved canals. This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and centering ratio of two rotary files in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods Forty-four extracted human mandibular first molars with mature apices and 10° to 30° apical curvature were selected. The samples were randomly divided into two groups (n = 22) with similar curvature. The canals were prepared with ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper file systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The CBCT images were obtained using Cranex 3D CBCT scanner before and after root canal preparation, and canal transportation and centering ratio of the files at 3, 4 and 5 mm levels from the apex were calculated. Data were compared between the two groups using independent t-test at 0.05 level of significance. Results The ProTaper Universal caused greater canal transportation and had lower centering ratio than XP-endo Shaper in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions at all levels from the apex. The difference between the two groups regarding canal transportation was significant at all levels from the apex in buccolingual direction (P < 0.05) except for 3 mm from the apex (P > 0.05). The difference between the two groups regarding centering ratio was not significant (P > 0.05) in mesiodistal direction at all levels except for 4 mm from the apex (P < 0.05). Conclusion The ProTaper Universal causes greater canal transportation in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions than XP-endo Shaper.

scholarly journals Apical Transportation of Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars Following Root Canal Preparation with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pegah Sarraf ◽  
Nazanin Kiomarsi ◽  
Farrokh Haj Taheri ◽  
Behrang Moghaddamzade ◽  
Fatemeh Dibaji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Root Canal Preparation ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Canal Transportation

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the transportation of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars following root canal preparation with HyFlex CM (HCM) and Edge Taper Platinum (ETP) rotary systems and stainless steel (SS) hand files using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: This in-vitro study was performed on 48 maxillary molars in three groups of 16. The teeth were mounted in acrylic blocks, and root canals were prepared using HCM in group 1 (up to #30/0.06), ETP in group 2 (up to F3/0.06), and SS hand files in group 3 (up to #30). CBCT scans were taken before and after root canal preparation. The amount of canal transportation was measured at 0, 3, 6, and 9mm from the apex. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: The difference in canal transportation at 0 and 6mm from the apex was significant between the HCM and ETP groups (P=0.031 and 0.023) but none of the systems showed any significant difference with hand files at 0- and 6-mm levels (P=0.10, 0.56, 0.22, and 0.50), respectively. At 3mm from the apex, no significant difference was noted among the groups (P=0.30). At the 9-mm level, the amount of canal transportation was not significantly different between HCM and ETP (P=0.83) but they showed significant differences with hand files (P<0.001). Conclusion: ETP and HCM caused less canal transportation at the curvature of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars compared to hand files. ETP showed superior efficacy in root canal preparation compared to HCM.

scholarly journals Apical Transportation of Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars Following Root Canal Preparation with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pegah Sarraf ◽  
Nazanin Kiomarsi ◽  
Farrokh Haj Taheri ◽  
Behrang Moghaddamzade ◽  
Fatemeh Dibaji ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Root Canal Preparation ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Maxillary Molars ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Canal Transportation

Objectives: This study aimed to compare the transportation of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars following root canal preparation with HyFlex CM (HCM) and Edge Taper Platinum (ETP) rotary systems and stainless steel (SS) hand files using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: This in-vitro study was performed on 48 maxillary molars in three groups of 16. The teeth were mounted in acrylic blocks, and root canals were prepared using HCM in group 1 (up to #30/0.06), ETP in group 2 (up to F3/0.06), and SS hand files in group 3 (up to #30). CBCT scans were taken before and after root canal preparation. The amount of canal transportation was measured at 0, 3, 6, and 9mm from the apex. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests. Results: The difference in canal transportation at 0 and 6mm from the apex was significant between the HCM and ETP groups (P=0.031 and 0.023) but none of the systems showed any significant difference with hand files at 0- and 6-mm levels (P=0.10, 0.56, 0.22, and 0.50), respectively. At 3mm from the apex, no significant difference was noted among the groups (P=0.30). At the 9-mm level, the amount of canal transportation was not significantly different between HCM and ETP (P=0.83) but they showed significant differences with hand files (P<0.001). Conclusion: ETP and HCM caused less canal transportation at the curvature of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars compared to hand files. ETP showed superior efficacy in root canal preparation compared to HCM.

scholarly journals Aspects of the biomechanical root canal treatment – step-back technique. In vitro study

2015 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 304-310
Author(s):  
Monica Voiculeanu ◽  
◽  
Ioana Suciu ◽  
Bogdan Dimitriu ◽  
Mihaela Grigore ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stainless Steel ◽  
Root Canal ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Final Shape ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Preparation Errors ◽  
Treatment Step

Evaluation of post-operative root canal shape have been performed using simulated root canals in resin blocks and magnification analysis (stereomicroscope) have been used for the study. The technique selected was stepback with conventional hand stainless steel instruments. The aim of studies on post-operative root canal shape is to evaluate the conicity, taper and flow and maintenance of original canal shape and to record the degree and frequency of straightening, apical transportation, ledging, zipping, teardrops, elbows. Ideal preparation forms for the root canals can be possible without any preparation errors with circular incorporation of the original canal cross section – if the technique starts with adequately precurved negotiating files. Preparation errors (zips, canal transportation, apical perforations, elbows, teardrops, etc) can occur mostly when stainless steel hand instruments (K-file) are used for moderate to severe curved of root canals, especially K-file with cutting tips and not prebent. Ideal preparation shape without any preparation errors could be a final shape and adequate shape even for conventional hand files and step-back technique. For the first area of step back technique, even for the begining, we can usually use various prebent stainless steel hand instruments for pathfinding. In many cases, conventional hand instruments produces adequate shapes for the root canals. For this final shape, is important to use adequately precurved negotiating files. Conventional stainless stell are rigid enough that thay should be precurved to match the curvature of the canal during instrumentation. Conventional hand instruments has two basic design, Kerr-file and Kerr-reamer. Kerr-file could be used to enlarge the canal with a longitudinal filing action. Kerr-reamer may used in a same fashion, but is much more flexible instrument than K-file. Noncutting tip follow the canal better than instruments with active tips – clinically usefull element.

scholarly journals Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Three Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary File Systems

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 (D) ◽  
pp. 30-36
Author(s):  
Balaji Sopanrao Kapse ◽  
Pradnya S. Nagmode ◽  
Jayshree Ramkrishna Vishwas ◽  
Hrishikesh B. Karpe ◽  
Harshal V. Basatwar ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File System ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Nickel Titanium ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Curved Root Canals

AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of three rotary nickel-titanium file systems, HyFlex controlled memory, Revo-S, and Mtwo in moderately curved root canals using computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty freshly extracted single-rooted teeth having curved root canals with at least 10°–20° of curvature were selected. The teeth were divided into three experimental groups of ten each. After preparation with HyFlex CM (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), Revo-S (Micro-Mega, Besançon, France), and Mtwo (VDW, Munich, Germany) all teeth were scanned using CT to determine the root canal shape. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were obtained at three levels, 3 mm apical, 9 mm middle, and 15 mm coronal above the apical foramen were compared using CT software. Amount of transportation and centering ability were assessed. The three groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey’s honestly significant difference test. RESULTS: Least apical transportation and higher centering ability were seen in HyFlex CM file system in all the three sections followed by Revo-S, Mtwo file system showed maximum transportation. CONCLUSIONS: According to the present in-vitro study, we can conclude that HyFlex CM rotary file systems showed least canal transportation and highest centering ability as compared to Revo-S and Mtwo file system but there was no statistically significant difference among these file systems (p > 0.05) at coronal, middle, and apical level of root canal.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document