Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

  • 제37권4호
  • /
  • Pages.220-227
  • /
  • 2012
  • /
  • 2234-7658(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2234-7666(eISSN)
대한치과보존학회 (The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals

  • Yoo, Young-Sil (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dankook University College of Dentistry) ;
  • Cho, Yong-Bum (Department of Conservative Dentistry, Dankook University College of Dentistry)
  • 투고 : 2012.10.26
  • 심사 : 2012.11.04
  • 발행 : 2012.12.01
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: The study was to compare the shaping ability of Reciproc (VDW) and WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments compared with ProTaper, Profile and hand instrument during the preparation of simulated root canals. Materials and Methods: Five groups (n = 5) were established. Reciproc, WaveOne, ProTaper, Profile and K file (K-flexo file) were used to prepare the resin simulated canals. A series of preoperative and postoperative images were taken by a microscope and superimposed in 2 different layers. The amount of resin removed from both the inner and the outer sides of the canal was measured to the level of 10 mm from the apical tip, with a 1 mm increment. Results: The mean of resin removal from the inner canal wall was not different from the outer canal wall for Reciproc and WaveOne groups at apical third (1 - 3 mm level). There was no difference in the change of working length and maintenance of canal curvature. NiTi instruments are superior to stainless-steel K file in their shaping ability. Conclusions: Within the limitation of this present study, Reciproc and WaveOne instruments maintained the original canal curvature in curved canals better than ProTaper and Profile, which tend to transport towards the outer canal wall of the curve in the apical part of the canal.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathways of the pulp. 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc; 2006. p305.
  2. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269-296.
  3. 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 2001;34:452-457.
  4. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988;14:346-351.
  5. Thomson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Profile .04 taper series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part1. Int Endod J 1997;30:1-7.
  6. Wu MK, Wesselilnk PR. Efficacy of three techniques in cleaning the apical portion of curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995; 79:492-496.
  7. Zmener O, Banegas G. Comparison of three instrumentation technique in the preparation of simulated curved root canals. Int Endod J 1996;29:315-319.
  8. Thompson SA. An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endod J 2000;33:297-310.
  9. Cheung GS, Liu CS. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod 2009;35:938-943.
  10. Kazemi RB, Stenman E, Spangberg LS. A comparison of stainless steel and nickel titanium H-type instruments of identical design: torsional and bending tests. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000;90:500-506.
  11. Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG Jr. The "balanced force" concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1985;11:203-211.
  12. Southard DW, Oswald RJ, Natkin E. Instrumentation of curved molar root canals with the Roane technique. J Endod 1987;13:479-489.
  13. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2007;41:339-344.
  14. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30:559-567.
  15. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparation in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Radiol 1971;32:271-275.
  16. Schafer E, Tepel J, Hoppe W. Properties of endodontic hand instruments used in rotary motion. Part2. Instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1995;21:493-497.
  17. Schäfer 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 2004;37:229-238.
  18. Kum KY, Spängberg L, Cha BY, Jung IY, Lee SJ, Lee CY. Shaping ability of three Profile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000;26:719-723.
  19. Ahmad M. The Validity of using simulated root canals models for ultrasonic instrumentation. J Endod 1989; 15:544-547.
  20. Alodeh MH, Dummer PM. A comparison of the ability of K-files and Hedstrom files to shape simulated root canals in resin blocks. Int Endod J 1989;22:226-235.
  21. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 2004;37:613-623.
  22. Paque F, Musch U, Hulsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005;38:8-16.
  23. Ku JH, Chang HS, Chang SW, Cho HH, Bae JM, Min KS. The instrument-centering ability of four Nickel-Titanium instruments in simulated curved root canals. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2006;31:113-118.
  24. Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Top 2006;15:75-90.
  25. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1997;23:77-85.
  26. Weine FS. Endodontic therapy. 3rd ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc; 1982. p256-340.
  27. Cunningham CJ, Senia ES. A three-dimensional study of canal curvatures in the mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod 1992;18:294-300.
  28. ElDeeb ME, Boraas JC. The effect of different files on the preparation shape of severely curved canals. Int Endod J 1985;18:1-7.
  29. You SY, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Shon WJ, Lee W. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod 2010;36:1991-1994.
  30. You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37:1296-1300.
  31. Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod 2006;32:61-65.
  32. Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of Profile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod 2008;34:1406-1409.

피인용 문헌

  1. Shaping characteristics of two different motions nickel titanium file: a preliminary comparative study of surface profile and dentin chip vol.30, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.14368/jdras.2014.30.2.121
  2. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth vol.48, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12289
  3. Does the Reciproc file remove root canal bacteria and endotoxins as effectively as multifile rotary systems? vol.48, pp.6, 2014, https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12346
  4. The impact of clinical use on the torsional behavior of Reciproc and WaveOne instruments vol.24, pp.4, 2016, https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720150596
  5. A comparison of the shaping ability of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study via a contrast radiopaque technique in vitro vol.17, pp.1, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-016-0326-5
  6. Endodontic treatment of mandibular molar with root dilaceration using Reciproc single-file system vol.38, pp.3, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.3.167
  7. Influence of operator's experience level on lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in extracted teeth vol.38, pp.4, 2013, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.4.222
  8. Effect of passive ultrasonic agitation during final irrigation on cleaning capacity of hybrid instrumentation vol.39, pp.2, 2014, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2014.39.2.104
  9. Comparison of canal transportation in simulated curved canals prepared with ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold systems vol.41, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.1.1
  10. Root canal volume change and transportation by Vortex Blue, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Universal in curved root canals vol.43, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2018.43.e3
  11. A new methodology for the measurement of the root canal curvature and its 3D modification after instrumentation vol.76, pp.7, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1080/00016357.2018.1440321
  12. Shaping ability of protaper next compared with waveone in late-model three-dimensional printed teeth vol.18, pp.1, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-018-0573-8
  13. Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals vol.15, pp.1, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0012-z
  14. Shaping Ability of Reciproc, UnicOne, and Protaper Universal in Simulated Root Canals vol.2015, pp.None, 2015, https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/690854
  15. Current Assessment of Reciprocation in Endodontic Preparation: A Comprehensive Review-Part II: Properties and Effectiveness vol.41, pp.12, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.08.018
  16. Transportation assessment in artificial curved canals after instrumentation with Reciproc, Reciproc Blue, and XP ‐endo Shaper Systems vol.10, pp.3, 2019, https://doi.org/10.1111/jicd.12417
  17. Canal transportation and centering ability of root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems with and without PathFiles in cone-beam computed tomography-based three-dimensional molar prot vol.24, pp.3, 2012, https://doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_200_21
  18. Evaluation of Curved Canal Transportation Using the Neoniti Rotary System with Reciprocal Motion: A Comparative Study vol.2021, pp.None, 2012, https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/4877619