No abstract

BackgroundDentistry has undergone an evolution in endodontics practice caused by the advancement of rotary techniques for root canal preparation and their subsequent incorporation into the teaching of dentistry undergraduates. This research aimed to evaluate the shaping ability of third-year dental students as their first experience in rotary instrumentation using ProTaper Universal (PTU) and ProTaper Next (PTN) (Dentsply Maillefer) rotary instruments in simulated curved canals.MethodsForty students instrumented 200 simulated canals with a 40° curvature in resin blocks according to the manufacturer’s instructions with PTU and 39 students and 195 canals with PTN files. The canals were prepared at a speed of 300 rpm using a 16:1 reduction hand-piece powered by an electric motor (Xsmart; Dentsply Maillefer). The final apical preparation was set to F2 for the PTU and X2 for the PTN group. The change in canal curvature was evaluated based on Schneider technique using the AutoCAD 2007 software on post-digital photographs. The incidence of instrument fracture and deformation, the incidence of ledge, the change in working length (WL), and the working time were noted. The data were analyzed with Student’st-test and Chi-Square test at a significance level of 0.05 using SPSS.ResultsPTN maintained the original canal curvature better, resulting in fewer fractures and ledges, and shaped the canals faster than the PTU (P < 0.05). The mean curves of the resin canals after the instrumentation for the PTU and PTN groups were 24.03° ± 3.14° and 25.64° ± 2.72°, respectively. Thirty-three (17.4%) PTU and 18 (9.3%) PTN files fractured (p < 0.05). Nine (4.5%) PTU and 2 (2.6%) PTN deformed (p > 0.05). The change in WL after instrumentation was 0.97 mm ± 0.95 mm in PTU and 0.96 mm ± 0.80 mm in PTN (p < 0.05). The mean times were 627 s ± 18 s for PTU and 379 s ± 18 s for PTN (p < 0.000).DiscussionPTN can be recommended in severely curved root canals in terms of maintenance of the original canal curvature, superior instrument fracture and fewer ledges. Even if training before preparation provides an acceptable level of canal shaping for preclinical students, the use of NiTi rotary instruments should be included in the undergraduate dental curriculum, contributing to an increase in the quality of root canal shaping and, consequently, to an improvement of the clinical experience of students.

BackgroundSince the introduction of nickel–titanium (Ni–Ti) instruments to dentistry, a wide variety of Ni–Ti instruments have become commercially available. These Ni–Ti instruments are expensive, which limits their usage in developing countries and forces practitioners to use instruments repeatedly. Another problem is the possible prion cross-contamination associated with the multiple usage of endodontic instruments. In addition, the use of these instruments requires new skills and experience. In this article, the shaping capacities of two conventional rotary file systems, ProFile 25/0.06 and ProTaper F2, were reviewed and compared with the Reciproc single-file system.MethodsA total of 45 simulated canals with 40° curvature, in clear resin blocks, were prepared using conventional rotary systems consisting of ProFile orifice shaping (OS) #3 and final flaring #25/.06, Reciproc R25, and ProTaper shaping file SX and finishing file F2. Pre-and post-instrumentation images were analyzed at ten different levels, using AutoCAD 2007 software. The measurement positions were defined in 1-mm intervals: positions 0–3 established the apical part, positions 4–6 constituted the middle part, and positions 7–10 established the coronal part of the canal. The amount of removed resin, the transportation, instrumentation time, change in working length (WL), instrumentation fractures, and the presence of ledge were evaluated. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and independent t-test (p < 0.001).ResultsProFile removed the least resin (p < 0.001) and caused less transportation than Reciproc and ProTaper, in total (p < 0.001). ProTaper caused more transportation ProFile and Reciproc in the apical part (p < 0.000). Reciproc caused more transportation than ProTaper and ProFile (p < 0.001), and the transportation tendency toward the inner aspect of the curvature in the middle part. Reciproc caused the less transportation than ProFile and ProTaper in the coronal part. The transportations tended to occur toward the outside of the curvature, except the middle part with Reciproc and at points 5 and 6 with ProTaper. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of maintaining the original WL. Reciproc was significantly faster than the others group (p < 0.001). Only one instrument fracture (25/0.06 ProFile) was noted. All groups showed one ledge each.DiscussionThe results of the present study showed that both ProFile 25/06 and ProTaper F2, combined with a file used for coronal enlargement (OS3 and SX), have the potential to create satisfactory canal shape in the curved root canals. Further studies using real human teeth are needed to confirm our results.

Bakteriler pulpal ve periapikal lezyonların gelişiminde primer etyolojik faktör olarak kabul edilmiştir. Başarılı kök kanal tedavisi pulpal dokuların dentin debrislerinin ve enfekte mikroorganizmaların kemomekanik olarak uzaklaştırılmasına bağlıdır. Tedavi süresince olumlu sonuçlara ulaşmak için problemlerin tanınmasını ve etyolojik faktörlerin uzaklaştırılması gerektirir. Etyolojik faktörlerin uzaklaştırılması kök kanallarının sadece mekanik temizliği mümkün değildir. Bu yüzden irrigantların kemomekanik temizliğin olmazsa olmaz parçasıdır. Bu derleme endodonti de kullanılan irrigasyon solüsyonlarının etki şekli yapısı ile ilgili literatür taraması ve güncel irrigasyon solüsyonları hakkında bilgiler içermektedir.

Backround: frequent introduction of new dental instruments or devices into the market has been a concern for dentists worldwide, as the prices of such instruments are generally high, especially in developing countries. In addition, the use of these tools requires new skills and experience. For this reason, while innovations in dentistry are being pursued, it may be advantageous to update the dental instruments that we have been using for years. This study evaluated whether both ProFile and ProTaper files have the potential to reduce the number of files required for shaping curved root canals. Methods: A total of 45 simulated canals with 40o curvature in clear resin blocks were prepared with conventional rotary systems: ProFile orifice shaping (OS) #3 and final flaring #25/.06, Reciproc R25, and ProTaper shaping file SX and finishing file F2. Pre- and post-instrumentation views were analysed using digital images captured by a camera. Prepared inner and outer walls at 1–10 levels were measured using AutoCAD software. The time required for canal shaping and the frequency of broken instruments were recorded. Standardised pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs were taken to determine changes in working length (WL) and straightening of canal curvature. The presence of blockage or perforation was also evaluated. Data were analysed using the one-way multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. The transportation, instrumentation time, change of WL, and instrumentation fractures were evaluated. Data were analysed by ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and independent t-test (p<0.05). Results: Reciproc removed more mass in total and caused less transportation in the middle and coronal third (p<0.001). The transportations performed in the apical third were opposite to the curve. There was no significant difference among the groups in terms of maintaining the original WL. Reciproc was significantly faster (p<0.001). Only one instrument fracture (25/0.06 ProFile) was noted. All groups showed one ledge each. Discussion: According to this study, both ProFile and ProTaper files have the potential to reduce the number of files required for shaping curved root canals. However, Reciproc, which was produced using a single-file concept, was determined to be more advantageous in terms of time. This study suggests that the conventional rotary technique system might have comparable efficacy to the single-file system for root canal shaping.

Backround: frequent introduction of new dental instruments or devices into the market has been a concern for dentists worldwide, as the prices of such instruments are generally high, especially in developing countries. In addition, the use of these tools requires new skills and experience. For this reason, while innovations in dentistry are being pursued, it may be advantageous to update the dental instruments that we have been using for years. This study evaluated whether both ProFile and ProTaper files have the potential to reduce the number of files required for shaping curved root canals. Methods: A total of 45 simulated canals with 40o curvature in clear resin blocks were prepared with conventional rotary systems: ProFile orifice shaping (OS) #3 and final flaring #25/.06, Reciproc R25, and ProTaper shaping file SX and finishing file F2. Pre- and post-instrumentation views were analysed using digital images captured by a camera. Prepared inner and outer walls at 1–10 levels were measured using AutoCAD software. The time required for canal shaping and the frequency of broken instruments were recorded. Standardised pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs were taken to determine changes in working length (WL) and straightening of canal curvature. The presence of blockage or perforation was also evaluated. Data were analysed using the one-way multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) and least significant difference test. The level of significance was set at 0.05. The transportation, instrumentation time, change of WL, and instrumentation fractures were evaluated. Data were analysed by ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and independent t-test (p<0.05). Results: Reciproc removed more mass in total and caused less transportation in the middle and coronal third (p<0.001). The transportations performed in the apical third were opposite to the curve. There was no significant difference among the groups in terms of maintaining the original WL. Reciproc was significantly faster (p<0.001). Only one instrument fracture (25/0.06 ProFile) was noted. All groups showed one ledge each. Discussion: According to this study, both ProFile and ProTaper files have the potential to reduce the number of files required for shaping curved root canals. However, Reciproc, which was produced using a single-file concept, was determined to be more advantageous in terms of time. This study suggests that the conventional rotary technique system might have comparable efficacy to the single-file system for root canal shaping.