Comparison of dentinal and apical crack formation caused by four different nickel-titanium rotary and reciprocating systems in large and small canals

Abstract

This study compared dentinal and apical crack formation after instrumentation with different nickel-titanium systems at two different working lengths (WL) in large and small canals. Two hundred and eighty human teeth were randomly distributed into two control and 12 experimental groups (n=20 each). Large and small canals were instrumented by the WaveOne, Protaper Universal System (PTU), Twisted File (TF), or Twisted File Adaptive (TFA) at 1 mm shorter than canal length (CL−1 mm) or 1 mm beyond apical foreman (CL+1 mm). Horizontal sections were microscopically observed to evaluate the dentinal cracks (only large canals). Scanning electron microscopy images were taken before and after instrumentation to assess apical cracks. All file types caused more apical cracks in small canals than in large canals regardless of the WL. During over-instrumentation (WL=CL+1 mm), the WaveOne and PTU groups developed significantly more dentinal cracks at the 6 and 9 mm sections than the TF and TFA groups.

The incidence of dentinal cracks during root canal preparations with reciprocating single-file and rotary-file systems: A meta-analysis

“…Of those studies, 12 were excluded after we examined the full text because they did not conform to the eligibility criteria of this review, as shown in Table 2 20,30-40) . Finally, the 8 studies that met the inclusion criteria were included [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] . The process involved in the study selection is shown in Fig.…”

“…Two studies 23,27) compared ProTaper and Reciproc. Five studies 22,[24][25][26]28) compared ProTaper and WaveOne. One study included both of the two comparison groups 21) .…”

“…In the ProTaper vs. WaveOne group, 6 studies 21,22,[24][25][26]28) involving 720 teeth slices were included. Considerable heterogeneity was found Review authors' judgments about each risk of bias item presented as percentages across all included studies.…”

“…To our knowledge, there is a lack of consistency in the results of in vitro and in vivo experiments. Several researchers reported that fullsequence rotary-file instruments induce fewer dentinal cracks than reciprocating single-file systems 21,22) . However, others stated that there was no significant difference in dentinal crack formation between these two systems [23][24][25] .…”

Evaluation of Dentinal Defects After Different Root Canal Preparation Techniques

“…Çalışmamızda en fazla dentin defekti, Reciproc grubunda tespit edilmiştir ve bu sonuç, Bürklein ve arkadaşlarının 8 bulguları ile benzerlik göstermektedir. TFA ile kök kanal şekillendirilmesinin dentin çatlakları üzerindeki etkisi birçok çalışmada değerlendirilmiştir 26,27. Çalışma bulgularımız, TFA ve kontrol gruplarında dentin defekti oluşumu tespit edilmeyen Zhou ve arkadaşlarının 23 bulguları ile uyumludur.…”