Geometric and dimensional characteristics of simulated curved canals prepared with proTaper instruments

Abstract

ObjectiveThis study identified which regions of ProTaper instruments work during curved root canal instrumentation.Material and methodsTwelve ProTaper instruments of each type, S1, S2, F1, and F2, were assessed morphometrically by measuring tip angle, tip length, tip diameter, length of each pitch along the cutting blades, and instrument diameter at each millimeter from the tip. Curved canals in resin blocks were explored with manual stainless steel files and prepared with ProTaper instruments until the apical end following four distinct sequences of instrumentation: S1; S1 and S2; S1, S2, and F1; S1, S2, F1, and F2. Image analysis was employed for measuring canal diameters. The diameters of the canals and diameters of the instruments were compared. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test.ResultsNo statistically significant difference was found between the canals and instrument diameters (p>0.05). The largest diameters in the end-point of the instrumented canals were obtained with F1 and F2 instruments and in the initial and middle thirds with S1 and S2 instruments.ConclusionsAll instruments worked at the tip and along their cutting blades, being susceptible to fail by torsion, fatigue, or the combination of these two mechanisms.

Wizard CD Plus and ProTaper Universal: analysis of apical transportation using new software

“…However, natural teeth present variation in morphology which impairs the comparison of the experimental groups 9 . On the other hand, acrylic resin blocks allow the observation of the preparation in three dimensions along the whole canal length and a direct comparison of the shaping ability of different instruments 14 . In addition, they provide standardized length, diameter and angle of curvature of the simulated root canals 9 , 23 .…”

Evaluation of the Number of Canals Modeled With Prodesign M Files Up to Their Fracture in “Ex Vivos” Lower Teeth”

“…With regard to the safety of the system, authors, according to Gênova et al, (2004), have evaluated the behavior of the instrument regarding fracture in relation to the number of times the files were used in the instrumentation of canals simulated in blocks of resin, realizing that the ProTaper file proved to be safe until the fourth use and that the highest fracture rate occurs in files with greater tapers at the point of greatest curvature angle. According to Martins, Bahia and Buono (2009), the hardness of dentin compared to that of acrylic resin is lower. Therefore, with the aim of reducing the fracture rate, in this study, lower premolar human teeth with curvatures of up to 25º and with CRC ranging from 19 millimeters to 25 millimeters in length were used, thus configuring a more reliable with clinical practice, compared to acrylic resin blocks.…”

“…The objective of the study by Martins, Bahia and Buono (2009) was to evaluate the geometric and dimensional characteristics of curved root canals simulated in acrylic resin blocks, prepared with ProTaper instruments, to analyze which regions of these instruments act during instrumentation in curved root canals.…”

Avaliação da capacidade de corte das limas WaveOne Gold e W-file após o quarto uso

“…Research, Society andDevelopment, v. 11, n. 8, e58011831376, 2022 (CC BY 4.0) | ISSN 2525-3409 | DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v11i8.31376 6 O uso desses canais simulados não produz os mesmos efeitos quando dentes naturais são utilizados, pois a dureza da resina não é igual à da dentina (Hulsmann et al, 2003). Mas os materiais escolhidos para substituir os dentes humanos, possuem vantagens significativas, como a visualização direta do campo operatório e padronização do comprimento e curvatura dos canais (Martins et al,2010).…”

“…Neste estudo, foram utilizados blocos em resina acrílica para substituir dentes humanos. A visualização direta do campo operatório e padronização do comprimento e curvatura dos canais, são algumas das vantagens da utilização desse tipo de material (Martins et al,2010;Dummer et al, 1991).…”