Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Comparison of shaping ability between various hybrid instrumentation methods with ProTaper

ProTaper를 사용한 다양한 hybrid instrumentation methods의 근관성형 효율 비교

  • Hong, Eun-Sook (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Park, Jeong-Kil (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Hur, Bock (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Hyeon-Cheol (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 홍은숙 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 박정길 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 허복 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 김현철 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Published : 2006.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping abilities of various hybrid instrumentation method using constant tapered file systems with $ProTaper\^{(R)}$ S1 and the difference between experts and inexperienced clinicians in use of NiTi file. Three hybrid methods used in this study were composed of $ProTaper\^{(R)}\;S1\;and\;K-Flexofile\^{(R)}\;(group S),\;ProTaper\^{(R)}\;S1\;and\;HeroShaper\^{(R)}\;(group\;H),\;and\;ProTaper\^{(R)}\;S1\;and\;ProFile\^{(R)}\;(group\;P)$respectively. The $ProTaper\^{(R)}$-alone method (group C) was introduced as a control group. After canal preparation, the lapse of time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-operative canal were scanned and superimposed. Amounts of instrumented canal widths and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2 and 3 mm levels and statistical analysis was performed In this study. both of the group C and S took more time to prepare canals than other groups, Inexperienced operators required more time for the entire preparation with the groups C and H than the experienced (p<0.05). And the centering ratio of group P were preferable to $ProTaper\^{(R)}$-alone method or the hybrid technique using stainless steel files. As such, within experienced operators, group H also showed better results in addition to the group P. Under these condition, the hybrid methods of each the $ProFile^{(R)}$ system and $HeroShaper^{(R)}$ with ProTaper are recommendable comparative to $ProTaper\^{(R)}$-alone method. According to the results, the hybrid instrumentation method is a more appropriate method of canal preparation than single file system for narrow or curved canals.

이 연구의 목적은 $ProTaper\^{(R)}$ S1과 3가지 종류의 파일을 각각 같이 사용하는 혼합법의 근관성형 효율을 비교해 보는 것이다. 5년 이상의 임상경력을 가진 치과의사 20명이 Ni-Ti파일 경험자군과 비경험자군으로 나뉘어, $ProTaper\^{(R)}$만을 사용한 C군과 $ProTaper\^{(R)}$ S1과 함께 세 종류의 파일 시스템- $ProFile\^{(R)}$ (P군), $HeroShaper\^{(R)}$ (H군), $K-Flexofile\^{(R)}$ (S군)을 혼합 적용하여, 각각의 방법으로 레진 근관을 성형하였다. 성형 전후 이미지를 중첩 시켜 근관형태 이상을 조사하고, 근단공부터 1, 2, 3mm 위치에서 근관 폭경의 변화량, 중심 변위율을 산출, 비교하여 다음의 결과를 얻었다. C군과 S군 모두 다른 실험군에 비해 성형시간이 많이 소요되었다. 경험자군에 비해 비경험자군에서는 C군과 H군에서 더 많은 시간이 소요되었다 P군의 중심변위율은 $ProTaper\^{(R)}$만을 사용한 C군이나 SS파일을 사용한 S군보다 양호하였다. 마찬가지로, 경험자군의 경우에서는 P군에 추가하여 H군도 더 나은 결과를 보였다 (p<0.05). 이 실험 조건하에, $ProFile\^{(R)}$과 $HeroShaper\^{(R)}$를 사용한 혼합법이 $ProTaper\^{(R)}$만을 사용한 성형방법보다 더욱 추천된다.

Keywords

References

  1. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 14(7):346-351, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(88)80196-1
  2. Schafer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: clinical study. J Endod 30(6):432-435, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200406000-00014
  3. Chen JL, Messer HH. A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. Aust Dent J 47(1):12-20, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1834-7819.2002.tb00297.x
  4. Garip Y, Gunday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 34(6):452-457, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00416.x
  5. Glosson CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, Delrio CE. A comparison of root canal preparation using NiTi hand, NiTi engine driven and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 21:146-151, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80441-3
  6. Schafer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92(2):215-220, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.114622
  7. Park H. A comparison of Greater Taper files, Profiles and stainless steel files to shape curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 91(6):715-718, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.114159
  8. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Truitt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod 30(4):234-237, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200404000-00013
  9. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 36(4):288-295, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00650.x
  10. Clauder T, Baumann MA, ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am 48(1):87-111, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2003.10.006
  11. Peters OA, Peters CI, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J 36(1):86-92, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00626.x
  12. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 37(9):613-623, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00860.x
  13. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95(2):228-233, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.92
  14. Schafer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 37(4):229-238, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00786.x
  15. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod 29(1):15-19, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200301000-00005
  16. Walsch H. The hybrid concept of nickel?titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Am 48:183-202, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2003.11.003
  17. Park SH, Cho KM, Kim JW. The Efficiency of the Ni-Ti Rotary files in Curved Simulated Canals Shaped by Novice Operators. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 28(2):146-155, 2003 https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2003.28.2.146
  18. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod 14(6):273-277, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(88)80025-6
  19. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod 25(6):441-445, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80275-1
  20. Szep S, Gerhardt T, Leitzbach C, Luder W, Heidemann D. Preparation of severely curved simulated root canals using engine-driven rotary and conventional hand instruments. Clin Oral Investig 5(1):17-25, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00010680
  21. Peters OA. Current Challenges and Concepts in the Preparation of Root Canal Systems: A Review. J Endod 30(8):559-567, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/01.DON.0000129039.59003.9D
  22. Hata G, Uemma M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated carials. J Endod 28(4):316-321, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200204000-00014
  23. Kim HC, Park JK, Hur B. Relative efficacy of three Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 30(1):38-48, 2005 https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.1.038
  24. Park WK, Lee HJ, Hur B. Shaping ability of nickel-titanium rotary files. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 29(1):44-50, 2004 https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.1.044
  25. Powell SE, Simon JHS, Maze B. A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration. J Endod 12:293-300, 1986 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(86)80111-X
  26. Griffiths IT, Bryant ST, Dummer PM. Canal shapes produced sequentially during instrumentation with Quantec LX rotary nickel-titanium instruments: a study in simulated canals. Int Endod J 33:346-354, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00311.x
  27. Iqbal MK, Firic S, Tulcan J, Karabucak B, Kim S. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 37(6):359-364, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00792.x
  28. Garala M, Kuttler S, Hardigan P, Steiner-Carmi R, Dorn S. A Comparison of the minimum canal wall thickness remaining following preparation using two nickel-titanium rotary systems. Int Endod J 36:636-642, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00704.x
  29. Gonza 'lez-Rodr' guez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. A comparison of Profile, Hero 642, and K3 instrumentation systems in teeth using digital imaging analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 97(1):112-115, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.08.019
  30. Thompson SA, Dummer PMH. Shaping ability of Hero642 rotary nickel- titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int Endod J 33:248-254, 2000 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00287.x

Cited by

  1. Comparison of shaping ability between single length technique and crown-down technique using Mtwo rotary file vol.32, pp.4, 2007, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.4.385
  2. Comparison of shaping ability using various Nickel-Titanium rotary files and hybrid technique vol.32, pp.6, 2007, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.6.530
  3. Mechanical and geometric features of endodontic instruments and its clinical effect vol.36, pp.1, 2011, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2011.36.1.1