scholarly journals Cone beam computed tomography assessment of canal transportation, centering ability, and radius change of two single file systems in curved root canals

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (3) ◽  
pp. 2739-2747
Author(s):  
Fahd Hadhoud
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Single File ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Curved Root Canals

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

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.

scholarly journals Comparative Evaluation of Root Canal Transportation by Three NiTi Single-File Systems in Curved Canals: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

2018 ◽  
Vol 2018 ◽  
pp. 1-6 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eshaghali Saberi ◽  
Narges Farhad-Mollashahi ◽  
Shima Bijari ◽  
Mohammad Daryaeian
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Root Canal ◽  
Ex Vivo ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Single File ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Level Of Significance

Introduction. This study is aimed at evaluating root canal transportation in the mesiobuccal canal of mandibular first molars prepared with One Shape, Reciproc, and M-One nickel titanium (NiTi) single-file rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods. In this ex vivo study, CBCT scans of 45 extracted human mandibular first molars with 20–40° curvature were obtained. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=15) for preparation of the mesiobuccal canal with One Shape, Reciproc, and M-One rotary systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. CBCT scans were obtained again after canal preparation. Changes caused by preparation in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were determined on CBCT scans and analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test at P≤0.05 level of significance. Results. No significant difference was noted in the amount of canal transportation among the three groups (P>0.05). M-One caused greater transportation in the apical third compared with Reciproc and One Shape, and One Shape caused greater transportation in the coronal third compared with other groups, although its magnitude was less than 0.3 mm. Conclusion. Reciproc, One Shape, and M-One are not significantly different in terms of canal transportation.

scholarly journals Comparison of Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio by Cone-beam Computed Tomography after Preparation with Different File Systems

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (5) ◽  
pp. 360-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sevinç Aktemur Türker ◽  
Emel Uzunoglu
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Friedman Test ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Canal Transportation

ABSTRACT Aim One Shape Apical 1 (OSA 1) is a new file for preparing the apical aspect of the root canal after One Shape (OS, Micro Mega, Besançon, France). This study compared apical transportation and centering ratios in curved root canals, which were instrumented with ProTaper Next (PTN, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) up to size X3 and with OS up to OSA 1. Materials and methods Forty-eight mesial canals of mandibular molars were assigned into two groups (n = 24) with respect to canal length and curvature. Root canals were accessed conventionally and preperation was completed with PTN files up to X3 or with OS up to OSA 1 according to the manufacturer's protocols. Apical transportation was assessed pre- and postinstrumentation using cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm sections. A Friedman test was performed to assess the significance between file systems. Results No significant difference was found between the file systems regarding apical transportation and centering ratio values (p > 0.05). Transportation in the mesial direction was greater than the distal transportation for both file systems. Conclusion Considering apical transportation and centering ratio in curved canals, two systems provided similar results. Clinical significance Preparation up to One Shape Apical 1 or ProTaper Next X3 was shown similar results regarding apical transportation and centering ratio. Both systems were safe to use in curved molar root canals. How to cite this article Uzunoglu E, Turker SA. Comparison of Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio by Cone-beam Computed Tomography after Preparation with Different File Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(5):360-365.

scholarly journals Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of trunatomy and protaper gold files in curved canals using cone?beam computed tomography: An invitro study

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 101-105
Author(s):  
Kadam Krutika Kiran ◽  
Vagarali Hemant ◽  
Pujar Madhu A ◽  
Tamase Aishwarya S ◽  
Sahana Umesh
Keyword(s):  
Computed Tomography ◽  
Cone Beam Computed Tomography ◽  
Root Canal ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Human Teeth ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Group 2 ◽  
Shaping Ability

This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and canal centering ability in the preparation of curved root canals after instrumentation with TruNatomy (TN) (TN; Dentsply Sirona, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and ProTaper Gold (PG) (PG; Dentsply, Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK, USA) files using cone‑beam computed tomography (CBCT). 30 Single rooted extracted human teeth with root curvature ranging from 20-30° according to Schneider’s method were selected. Teeth with any visible cracks or fractures, calcifications, previous root canal treatments were excluded. The teeth were randomly assigned into two groups i.e. Group 1-TN and Group 2-PG (n = 15 each). The teeth were instrumented according to manufacturer’s guidelines for both the groups. Canals were scanned using a CBCT scanner before and after preparation to evaluate the transportation and centering ratio at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm from the apex. The data analysis was done using SPSS software and the test used was independent sample t test for comparison between the 2 groups.Data obtained suggested that TN group presented lesser canal transportation at the middle third of the root. The PG group showed better centering abitily at apical third of the root canal when both the groups were compared. TN resulted in less transportation than PG at the middle third, and PG showed better centering ability at the apical third. Overall, both systems safely prepared root canals, causing minimal errors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document