Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

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

DOI QR Code

Cutting efficiency of apical preparation using ultrasonic tips with microprojections: confocal laser scanning microscopy study

  • Kwak, Sang-Won (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute) ;
  • Moon, Young-Mi (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Daejeon Hospital, WonKwang University) ;
  • Yoo, Yeon-Jee (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Dental Research Institute) ;
  • Baek, Seung-Ho (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Dental Research Institute) ;
  • Lee, WooCheol (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Seoul National University, Dental Research Institute) ;
  • Kim, Hyeon-Cheol (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute)
  • Received : 2014.06.02
  • Accepted : 2014.06.13
  • Published : 2014.11.29
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare the cutting efficiency of a newly developed microprojection tip and a diamond-coated tip under two different engine powers. Materials and Methods: The apical 3 mm of each root was resected, and root-end preparation was performed with upward and downward pressure using one of the ultrasonic tips, KIS-1D (Obtura Spartan) or JT-5B (B&L Biotech Ltd.). The ultrasonic engine was set to power-1 or -4. Forty teeth were randomly divided into four groups: K1 (KIS-1D / Power-1), J1 (JT-5B / Power-1), K4 (KIS-1D / Power-4), and J4 (JT-5B / Power-4). The total time required for root-end preparation was recorded. All teeth were resected and the apical parts were evaluated for the number and length of cracks using a confocal scanning micrscope. The size of the root-end cavity and the width of the remaining dentin were recorded. The data were statistically analyzed using two-way analysis of variance and a Mann-Whitney test. Results: There was no significant difference in the time required between the instrument groups, but the power-4 groups showed reduced preparation time for both instrument groups (p < 0.05). The K4 and J4 groups with a power-4 showed a significantly higher crack formation and a longer crack irrespective of the instruments. There was no significant difference in the remaining dentin thickness or any of the parameters after preparation. Conclusions: Ultrasonic tips with microprojections would be an option to substitute for the conventional ultrasonic tips with a diamond coating with the same clinical efficiency.

Keywords

References

  1. Sjogren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod 1990;16:498-504. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4
  2. Plotino G, Pameijer CH, Grande NM, Somma F. Ultrasonics in endodontics: a review of the literature. J Endod 2007;33:81-95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.008
  3. Engle TK, Steiman HR. Preliminary investigation of ultrasonic root end preparation. J Endod 1995;21:443-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81524-4
  4. Gondim E Jr, Gomes BP, Ferraz CC, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. Effect of sonic and ultrasonic retrograde cavity preparation on the integrity of root apices of freshly extracted human teeth: scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Endod 2002;28:646-650. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200209000-00005
  5. Tidrmarsh BG, Arrowsmith MG. Dentinal tubules at the root ends of apicected teeth: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1989;22:184-189. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1989.tb00922.x
  6. Gutmann JL, Harrison JW. Posterior endodontic surgery: anatomical considerations and clinical techniques. Int Endod J 1985;18:8-34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1985.tb00415.x
  7. Gutmann JL, Saunders WP, Nguyen L, Guo IY, Saunders EM. Ultrasonic root-end preparation. Part 1. SEM analysis. Int Endod J 1994;27:318-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00276.x
  8. Bertrand G, Festal F, Barailly R. Use of ultrasound in apico-ectomy. Quintessence Int 1976;7:9-12.
  9. Lin YH, Mickel AK, Jones JJ, Montagnese TA, Gonzalez AF. Evaluation of cutting efficiency of ultrasonic tips used in orthograde endodontic treatment. J Endod 2006;32:359-361. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.12.004
  10. Brent PD, Morgan LA, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation of diamond-coated ultrasonic instruments for root-end preparation. J Endod 1999;25:672-675. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80353-7
  11. Saunders WP, Saunders EM, Gutmann JL. Ultrasonic root-end preparation, Part 2. Microleakage of EBA root-end fillings. Int Endod J 1994;27:325-329. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00277.x
  12. Layton CA, Marshall JG, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation of cracks associated with ultrasonic root-end preparation. J Endod 1996;22:157-160. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80091-4
  13. Abedi RH, Van Mierlo BL, Wilder-Smith P, Torabinejad M. Effects of ultrasonic root-end cavity preparation on the root apex. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;80:207-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(05)80204-5
  14. Waplington M, Lumley PJ, Walmsley AD. Incidence of root face alteration after ultrasonic retrograde cavity preparation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1997;83:387-392. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(97)90247-X
  15. Frank RJ, Antrim DD, Bakland LK. Effect of retrograde cavity preparations on root apexes. Endod Dent Traumatol 1996;12:100-103. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-9657.1996.tb00105.x
  16. von Arx T, Walker WA 3rd. Microsurgical instruments for root-end cavity preparation following apicoectomy: a literature review. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;16:47-62. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-9657.2000.016002047.x
  17. Gray GJ, Hatton JF, Holtzmann DJ, Jenkins DB, Nielsen CJ. Quality of root-end preparations using ultrasonic and rotary instrumentation in cadavers. J Endod 2000;26:281-283. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200005000-00007
  18. Calzonetti KJ, Iwanowski T, Komorowski R, Friedman S. Ultrasonic root end cavity preparation assessed by an in situ impression technique. Oral Surg Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1998;85:210-215. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(98)90428-0
  19. Khabbaz MG, Kerezoudis NP, Aroni E, Tsatsas V. Evaluation of different methods for the root-end cavity preparation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:237-242. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.02.062
  20. Mehlhaff DS, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Comparison of ultrasonic and high-speed-bur root-end preparations using bilaterally matched teeth. J Endod 1997;23:448-452. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80301-9
  21. Engel TK, Steiman HR. Preliminary investigation of ultrasonic root end preparation. J Endod 1995;21:443-445. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81524-4
  22. Beling KL, Marshall JG, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation for cracks associated with ultrasonic root-end preparation of gutta-percha filled canals. J Endod 1997;23:323-326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80415-3
  23. Taschieri S, Testori T, Francetti L, Del Fabbro M. Effects of ultrasonic root end preparation on resected root surfaces: SEM evaluation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004;98:611-618. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.04.004

Cited by

  1. Questioning the spot light on Hi-tech endodontics vol.41, pp.1, 2016, https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2016.41.1.80