Aim: To evaluate the effect of instrumentation kinematics on debris extrusion by comparing the amount of apically extruded debris after canal preparation using ProTaper next in continuous rotation as well as forward reciprocating motion and WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocating motion. Materials and methods: We randomly divided ninety buccal roots of maxillary bicuspids with fully formed apices into three groups. After achieving the coronal access, the patency of the root canals was established with a size 10 K file. The canals were then instrumented using ProTaper next in continuous rotation or in a forward reciprocating motion and WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocating motion. Eppendorf tubes were used to collect the debris extruded through the apical foramen. The tubes were placed in a −80° freezer for 8 hours and then in a lyophilizer for 24 hours. The quantity of the apically extruded debris was assessed by subtracting the weights of Eppendorf tubes before and after instrumentation. The analysis was done using a one-way ANOVA test and the Bonferroni test to compare the groups. Results: The mean weight of extruded debris with WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocation was significantly lower than ProTaper next in forward reciprocation and ProTaper next in continuous rotation (p value = <0.001).
Conclusion:WaveOne gold in reverse reciprocation was associated with a significantly lower amount of apical extrusion of debris than ProTaper next rotary files in forward reciprocation and continuous rotation. Clinical significance: According to the results of this study, reciprocating instrumentation technique was associated with a less amount of debris extrusion compared to continuous rotation.
Aim and objective
To compare root microcrack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next in rotation or forward reciprocation and Waveone gold in reverse reciprocating motion.
Materials and methods
Buccal roots of 60 maxillary premolars with mature apices were selected, for different instrumentation techniques and divided into three groups. Coronal access was achieved and the canals were confirmed for apical patency. The canals were then instrumented using the following instrumentation techniques: ProTaper Next in rotation or forward reciprocation or Waveone gold in reverse reciprocation. The tooth was then subjected to sectioning using a diamond saw under water cooling and then was visualized under the stereomicroscope for dentinal microcrack.
Results
The results showed that the maximum dentinal microcrack formed at apical 3 and 6 mm was in Waveone gold in reverse reciprocation followed by ProTaper Next in forward reciprocation and rotation. However, the p value was found to be not significant at 3 and 6 mm (p value—0.082 and 0.23).
Conclusion
Nickle titanium rotary instruments tend to induce varied degrees of root dentinal damage during canal instrumentation. ProTaper Next files in rotation as well as forward reciprocation presented with minimal microcrack defects when compared with Waveone gold.
Clinical significance
Root canal preparation, when performed by manual or engine-driven techniques, has shown to produce structural defects in the root dentin. One of the causes of failures in root canal treatment is because of fracture in the dentin that occurs due to these procedures. Though all the motion kinematics caused microcracks in this study, it was seen that rotational motion produced the least structural damage to the dentin.
How to cite this article
Haridas K, Hariharan M, Singh P, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Microcrack Formation in Different Kinematics Using Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(12):1389–1392.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.