• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.24 no.4
• /
• pp.578-584
• /
• 1999

The purpose of this experiment was to determine: (1) the safe automatic apical reverse setting that prevents overinstrumentation of the root canal, using Tri Auto ZX$^{(R)}$ and (2) the effect of various irrigant on such instrumentation. The instrumentation was carried out with the automatic apical reverse setting of 0.5, 1.0, 1.5, and 2.0. The root canal irrigants used in usual manner were normal saline(0.9%), NaOCl(2.5%), and RC Prep$^{(R)}$. For each reverse setting and each irrigant, ten teeth were used with the total of 120 teeth. The distance between the file tip and the apical constriction was determined by stereomicroscope using the point that the file began to rotate in reverse direction. When the reverse setting mode was set to 0.5, 18 of 30 were overinstrumented. If these were discriminated by irrigant, 10 of 6 with 0.9% saline, 10 of 6 with NaOCl, and 10 of 6 with RC Prep$^{(R)}$ has the file tip located 0.57${\pm}$0.30mm, 0.73${\pm}$0.39mm, and 0.26${\pm}$0.25mm beyond the apical constriction respectively. In 1.0 setting 15 of 29 were over the apical constriction, and the distribution was 6 in saline, 5 in NaOCl, and 4 in RC Prep$^{(R)}$. The mean distance over the apical constriction was 0.28${\pm}$0.13mm with saline, 0.75${\pm}$0.61mm with NaOCl, and 0.25${\pm}$0.17mm with RC Prep$^{(R)}$. When the autoatic reverse mode was set to 1.5, and 2.0, 5, and 1 teeth were found to be overinstrumented in respective settings. But there were large variations in overinstrumented distances when an attempt was made to compare the effect of irrigants on this overinstrumentations and they were meaningless for the small sample size. When all of the autoreverse setting were combined to compare the number of overinstrumented teeth with each irrigant, there were no significant differences (14 for normal saline, 12 for NaOCl, 13 for RC Prep$^{(R)}$). When 0.5 or 1.0 automatic apical reverse setting mode was used the Tri Auto ZX$^{(R)}$ in clinical application, the possibility of overinstrumentation beyond the apical constriction exists in 55.9% of cases. Therefore 1.5 or 2.0 setting is safer for the preparation inside the canal but this type setting needs additional apical hand preparation of the root canal because the accuracy is lower than 0.5 or 1.0 setting.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.31 no.6
• /
• pp.452-459
• /
• 2006

Competition will usually develop between the opposing walls as the restorative resin shrinks during polymerization. Magnitude of this phenomenon may be depended upon cavity configuration and volume. The purpose of this sturdy was to evaluate the effect of cavity configuration and volume on microleakage of composite resin restoration that has margins on the enamel site only. The labial enamel of forty bovine teeth was ground using a model trimmer to expose a flat enamel surface. Four groups with cylindrical cavities were defined, according to volume and configuration factor(Depth x Diameter / C-factor) - Group I : 1.5 mm ${\times}$ 2.0 mm / 4.0, Group II : 1.5 mm ${\times}$ 6.0 mm / 2.0, Group III : 2.Omm ${\times}$ 1.72 mm / 5.62, Group IV : 2.0 mm ${\times}$ 5.23 mm / 2.54. After treating with fifth-generation one-bottle adhesive - BC Plus$^{TM}$ (Vericom, AnYang, Korea), cavities were bulk flted with microhybrid composite resin - Denfill$^{TM}$ (Vericom). Teeth were stored in distilled water for one day at room temperature and were finished and polished with Sof-Lex system. Specimens were thermocycled 500 times between 5$^{\circ}$C and 55$^{\circ}$C for 30 second at each temperature. Teeth were isolated with two layers of nail varnish except the restoration surface and 1 mm surrounding margins. Electrical conductivity (${\mu}$A) was recorded in distilled water by electrochemical method. Microleakage scores were compared and analyzed using two-way ANOVA at 95% level. The results were as follows: 1. Small cavity volume showed lower microleakage score than large one, however, there was no statistically significant difference. 2. There was no relationship between cavity configuration and microleakage. Factors of cavity configuration and volume did not affect on microleakage of resin restorations with enamel margins only.