• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.50-57
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study was to investigate influence of each file step of $ProTaper^{(R)}$ system on canal transportation. Twenty simulated canals were prepared with either engine-driven $ProTaper^{(R)}$ or manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$, Group R-resin blocks were instrumented with rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ and group M-resin blocks were instrumented with manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$. Pre-operative resin blocks and post-operative resin blocks after each file step preparation were scanned. Original canal image and the image after using each file step were superimposed for calculation of centering ratio The image after using each file step alld image after using previous file step were superimposed for calculation of the amount of deviation. Measurements were taken horizontally at five different levels (1 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm) from the level of apical foramen. In rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ instrumentation group, centering ratio and the amount of deviation of each step at all levels were not significantly different (p>0.05). In manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$ instrumentation group, centering ratio and the amount of deviation of each step at all levels except of 1 mm were not significantly different (p>0.05). At the level of 1 mn, F2 file step had significantly large centering ratio and the amount of deviation (p<0.05). Under the condition of this study, F2 file step of manual ProTaper tended to transport the apical part of the canals than that of rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$.

• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.28 no.3
• /
• pp.245-252
• /
• 2012

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the influence of glide path on canal centering ratio after instrumentation with different single file systems; WaveOne and Reciproc. Reciproc R25 (VDW), WaveOne Primary (Dentsply Maillefer) and PathFile #13, 16, 19 (Dentsply Maillefer) were used in this study. In no glide path groups, Reciproc files and WaveOne files used for canal preparation without glide path. In glide path groups, the PathFile were used before canal preparation. Methylene blue dye was introduced into the canal to obtain a clear pre-instrumentation image. Pre-instrumentation images and post-instrumentation images were scanned using Epson Perfection V700 Photo scanner (Epson, Nagano, Japan). Transparencies of post-instrumentation images were changed and superimposed on pre-instrumentation images using Adobe Photoshop CS 3 (Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA, USA). The centering ratio was calculated for each instrumented canal using the following formula: CR=|X1-X2|/Y. It was statistically analyzed using two-way ANOVA at 95% confidential level. The centering ratio in glide path groups were significant less than it in no glide path groups at 3, 4, 5 and 6 mm level. Except 1 and 6 mm level, WaveOne groups had significant less centering ration than Reciproc groups. At 6 mm level, there was no significant difference between WaveOne and Reciproc. In the limitation of this study, creation of a previous glide path before reciprocating motion instrumentation in curved canal appears to be appropriate and WaveOne system can be used for preparation of curved canal without severe aberrations.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.36 no.3
• /
• pp.231-237
• /
• 2011

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to determine the optimal master apical file size with minimal transportation and optimal efficiency in removing infected dentin. We evaluated the transportation of the canal center and the change in untouched areas after sequential preparation with a #25 to #40 file using 3 different instruments: stainless steel K-type (SS K-file) hand file, ProFile and LightSpeed using microcomputed tomography (MCT). Materials and Methods: Thirty extracted human mandibular molars with separated orifices and apical foramens on mesial canals were used. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups: SS K-file, Profile, LightSpeed and the root canals were instrumented using corresponding instruments from #20 to #40. All teeth were scanned with MCT before and after instrumentation. Cross section images were used to evaluate canal transportation and untouched area at 1-, 2-, 3-, and 5- mm level from the apex. Data were statistically analyzed according to 'repeated nested design' and Mann-Whitney test (p = 0.05). Results: In SS K-file group, canal transportation was significantly increased over #30 instrument. In the ProFile group, canal transportation was significantly increased after preparation with the #40 instrument at the 1- and 2- mm levels. LightSpeed group showed better centering ability than ProFile group after preparation with the #40 instrument at the 1 and 2 mm levels. Conclusions: SS K-file, Profile, and LightSpeed showed differences in the degree of apical transportation depending on the size of the master apical file.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.61-68
• /
• 2007

The purpose of this study was to compare the centering abilities of four root canal instrument systems and the amounts of dentin removed after root canal shaping using them. The mesial canals of twenty extracted mandibular first molars having $10-20^{\circ}$ curvature were scanned using X-ray micro-computed tomography (XMCT)-scanner before root canals were instrumented. They were divided into four groups (n = 10 per group). In Group 1, root canals were instrumented by the step-back technique with stainless steel K-Flexofile after coronal flaring. The remainders were instrumented by the crown-down technique with Profile (Group 2), ProTaper (Group 3) or K3 system (Group 4). All canals were prepared up to size 25 at the end-point of preparation and scanned again. Scanned images were processed to reconstruct three-dimensional images using three-dimensional image software and the changes of total canal volume were measured. Pre-and post-operative cross-sectional images of 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apical foramen were com pared. For each level, centering ratio were calculated using Adobe Photoshop 6.0 and image software program. ProTaper and K3 systems have a tendency to remove more dentin than the other file systems. In all groups, the lowest value of centering ratio at 3 mm level was observed. And except at 3 mm level, ProTaper system made canals less centered than the other systems (p < 0.05).

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.58-65
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the three $ProTaper^{(R)}$ instrumentation techniques in simulated canals. Thirty resin blocks were divided into 3 groups with 10 canals each. Each group was instrumented with manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (Group M), rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (Group R), and hybrid technique (Group H). Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of canal deviation, total canal width, inner canal width, outer canal width and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mm levels 1. Canal preparation time was the shortest in R group (p < 0.05). 2. The amounts of total canal width in R group was generally larger than the other groups, but no significant differences were observed except at the 1, 3 mm levels (p > 0.05) .3. The amounts of inner canal width in R group was larger than M group at the 1 mm level and H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05). The amounts of outer canal width in R group was larger than H group only at the 1 mm level (p < 0.05). 4. The direction of canal deviation in H, R group at the 1, 2, 3 mm levels was outward and that in M group at the 1, 2 mm levels was inward. The amounts of canal deviation in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05). 5. The amounts of centering ratio in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05).

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.31 no.3
• /
• pp.179-185
• /
• 2006

This study was conducted to evaluate canal configuration after shaping by $ProTaper^{TM}$ with various rotational speed in J-shaped simulated resin canals. Forty simulated root canals were divided into 4 groups, and instrumented using by $ProTaper^{TM}$ at the rotational speed of 250, 300, 350 and 400 rpm. Pre-instrumented and post-instrumented images were taken by a scanner and those were superimposed. Outer canal width, inner canal width, total canal width, and amount of transportation from original axis were measured at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 mm from apex. Instrumentation time, instrument deformation and fracture were recorded. Data were analyzed by means of one-way ANOVA followed by Scheffe's test. The results were as follows 1. Regardless of rotational speed, at the $1{\sim}2mm$ from the apex, axis of canal was transported to outer side of a curvature, and at 3~6 mm from the apex, to inner side of a curvature. Amounts of transportation from original axis were not sienifcantly different among experimental groups except at 5 and 6 mm from the apex. 2. Instrumentation time of 350 and 400 rpm was significantly less than that of 250 and 300 rpm (p<0.01). In conclusion the rotational speed of $ProTaper^{TM}$ files in the range of $250{\sim}400rpm$ does not affect the change of canal configuration, and high rotational speed reduces the instrumentation time. However appearance of separation and distortion of Ni-Ti rotary files can occur in high rotational speed.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.294-302
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the canal configuration after shaping by ProFile. ProTaper and K-Flexofile in simulated resin canals with different angles of curvature. Three types of instruments were used: ProFile. ProTaper. K-Flexofile. Simulated root canals. which were made of epoxy resin. were prepared by ProFile. ProTaper with rotary instrument using a crown-down pressureless technique. and hand instrumentation was performed by K-Flexofile using a step-back technique. All simulated. canals were prepared up to size 25 file at end-point of preparation. Pre and post instrumentation images were recorded with Scanner. Assessment of canal shape was completed with Image Analysis program. Measurements were made at 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9 and 10mm from the apex. At each level. outer canal width. inner canal width. total canal width. and amount of transportation from original axis were recorded. Instrument deformation and fracture were recorded. Data were analyzed by means of one-way ANOVA analysis of variance and the Sheffe's test. The result was that ProFile and ProTaper maintain original canal shape regardless of the increase of angle of curvature than K-Flexofile. ProFile show significantly less canal transportation and maintained original canal shape better than ProTaper.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.5
• /
• pp.393-401
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to compare the canal configuration after shaping by ProTaper rotary files and ProTaper hand files in resin simulated canals. Forty resin simulated canals with a curvature of J-shape and S-shape were divided into four groups by 10 blocks each Simulated root canals in resin block were prepared by ProTaper rotary files and ProTaper hand files using a crown-down pressureless technique All simulated canals were prepared up to size $\#25$ file at end-point of preparation. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were recorded with color scanner. Assessment of canal shape was completed with an image analysis program. Measurements were made at 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 mm from the apex. At each level, outer canal width, inner canal width, total canal width, and amount of transportation from original axis were recorded. Instrumentation time was recorded. The data were analyzed statistically using independent t-test. The result was that ProTaper hand files cause significantly less canal transportation from original axis of canal body and maintain original canal configuration better than ProTaper rotary files, however ProTaper hand files take more shaping time.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.32 no.2
• /
• pp.87-94
• /
• 2007

This study was done to evaluate transportation of the apical foramen after 0.5 mm overinstrumentation by ProFile, ProTaper and $K^3$ in simulated resin root canal. Sixty simulated resin root canal with a curvature of J and S-shape were divided into two groups. Each group consisted of three subgroups with 10 blocks according to the instruments used: $ProFile^{(R)},\;ProTaper^{TM},\;and\;K^{3TM}$. Simulated resin root canal was prepared by ProFile, ProTaper and $K^3$ with 300 rpm by the crown-down preparation technique. Pre- and post-instrumentation apical foramen images were overlapped and recorded with Image-analyzing microscope 100X (Camcope, Sometech Inc, Korea). The amounts of difference in width and dimension on overlapped images were measured after reference points were determined by Image Analysis program ($Image-Pro^{(R)}$ Express, Media Cybernetic, USA). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test. The results suggest that ProFile showed significantly less canal transportation and maintained original apical foramen shape better than $K^3$ and ProTaper.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.31 no.1
• /
• pp.1-10
• /
• 2006

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of three Ni-Ti file systems used by dental students or the experts and consequently to aid in choosing a proper systems for educational courses of dental students and beginners. Fifty students and ten dentists who have clinical experience over two years prepared 180 simulated root canals in resin blocks with three Ni-Ti systems; $ProFile^{(R)}\;(PF),\;HeroShaper^{(R)}\;(HS),\;K3^{TM}\;(K3)$. After preparation, the Ni-Ti files were evaluated for distortion and canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented canals were scanned and superimposed. Amounts of increased canal widths, deviation, and centering ratio were calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5 mm levels and statistical analysis was performed The results were as follows : 1. HS showed the shortest preparation time and instrumented canal width in K3 was significantly larger than other groups (P<0.05). 2. At 1 and 3mm levels, all groups had outward deviation. In student group, at the 1mm level, PF had the least deviation (P<0.05). 3. In the centering ratio, the PF had the best centering ability compared to the others at 5mm level. At 1 and 3mm levels, HS and PF had better abilities than K3. Student group had better ratio than the expert at 3mm level with PF (P<0.05). Based on the results, it is surmised that the $ProFile^{(R)}$ is the safest and most ideal instrument for students and beginners.