Abstract
The purpose of this study was to compare the root canal shaping ability of 4 rotary NiTi instruments in simulated root canals.
For the preparation of thirty two curved root canals, Mtwo instruments using "single length"technique, and Profile, ProTaper Universal, and K3 using crown-down technique (N = 8) were used. All canal samples were prepared by reaching an apical canal size of #30. Pre- and post-instrumentation digital images were recorded and an assessment of canal shape was determined using a computer image analysis program SigmaScan Pro (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). The changes of the dimension of inner walls of canals, (2) the changes of the dimension of outer walls of canals, and (3) the centering ratio were measured at 7 measuring points, and then data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan's test. The results were as below;
The root canal shaping ability of Profile was significantly faster than that of other rotary NiTi instruments (p < 0.05).
The deformation and fracture of all instruments used for this study were not experienced.
In the degree of changes of the dimension of inner walls of canals, Profile demonstrated the lowest changes of the dimension of inner walls of canals except at the measuring points of the 1 and 2 mm (p < 0.05). However, the ProTaper Universal showed the highest changes of the dimension of inner walls of canals at all measuring points (p < 0.05).
In the degree of changes of the dimension of outer walls of canals, Mtwo demonstrated the lowest changse of the dimension of outer walls of canals except at the measuring point of the 1 mm (p < 0.05). However, Profile exhibited the highest changes of the dimension of outer walls of canals at the measuring points of 3 and 4 mm and ProTaper Universal and K3 showed the largest changes of the dimension of outer walls of canals at the measuring points of 1, 2, 6, and 7 mm (p < 0.05).
In degree of centering ratio, Profile demonstrated the least centering ratio comparing with the centering ratio shown by other NiTi instruments at the measuring points of 1, 4, 5, and 6 mm.
Results suggest that in the coronal part of canal preparation, active cutting files such as ProTaper Universal may efficiently flare the canal orifice and form a better taper, and in the apical part of the canal, files which have a better centering ability such as Profile may maintain the original canal curvature and reduce the shaping time.
References
1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974. 18(2)269–296.
2. Schilder H, Yee F. In : Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Canal debridement and disinfection. Pathways of the Pulp 1984. 3rd edth ed. St Louis, MO: CV Mosby; 175–204.
3. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975. 1(8)255–262.
4. Schafer E, Tepel J, Hoppe W. Properties of endodontic hand instruments used in rotary motion. Part 2. Instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1995. 21(10)493–497.
5. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988. 14(7)346–351.
6. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995. 21(3)146–151.
7. Schafer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006. 39(3)196–202.
8. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An Analysis of Canal Centering Using Mechanical Instrumentation Techniques. J Endod 1999. 25(6)441–445.
11. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004. 30(8)559–571.
12. Ayar LR, Love RM. Shaping ability of ProFile and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments when used in a variable tip sequence in simulated curved root canals. Int Endod J 2004. 37(9)593–601.
13. Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zhang H, Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 2006. 39(10)791–799.
14. Yun H, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping ability of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003. 95(2)228–233.
15. Kang MS, Kim HC, Hur B, Park JK. Comparison of shaping ability of rotary Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006. 31(1)1–10.
16. Lim JJ, Kim DJ, Hwang YC, Hwangm IN, Oh WM. The change of canal configuration after instrumentation by several Nickel-Titanium files in the simulated canal with abrupt curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30(4)303–311.
17. Lim YK, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of shaping ability between single length technique and crown-down technique using Mtwo rotary file. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2007. 32(4)385–396.
18. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod 1988. 14(6)273–277.
19. Kum KY, Spangberg L, Cha BY, et al. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000. 26719–723.
20. Sonntag D, Ott M, Kook K, Stachniss V. Root canal preparation with the NiTi systems K3, Mtwo and ProTaper. Aust Endod J 2007. 33(2)73–81.
21. Lee BK, Kim DJ, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Oh WM. A comparative study on the canal configuration after shaping by profile, protaper™ and K-flexofile in simulated canals with different angles of curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30(4)294–302.
22. Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2008. 34(2)198–200.
23. Yoshimine Y, Ono M, Akamine A. The shaping effects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2005. 31(5)373–375.
