A cone-beam computed tomographic analysis to evaluate and compare the root thickness of prepared teeth, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation time in the deciduous teeth using Hyflex controlled memory and ProTaper next file systems – An in vitro study

Author(s):  
Ummey Salma ◽  
AR Prabhakar ◽  
BibiZohra Sunti ◽  
Basappa Nadig
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasin Haji Hasani

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.


2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasrin Haji Hasani

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.


2020 ◽  
Vol 23 (3) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
NTulasi Priya ◽  
Harikumar Vemisetty ◽  
Balwant Singh ◽  
Pooja Yenubary ◽  
AshishKumar Agarwal ◽  
...  

Endodontology ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 89
Author(s):  
Anju Abraham ◽  
Anika Mittal ◽  
Sarita Singh ◽  
Aditi Dhaundiyal ◽  
Bidya Yendrembam ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document