Comparison of incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation with continuous rotation and reciprocating instrumentation

Abstract

Biomechanical preparation is one of the most important steps in endodontic therapy. Rotary instrumentation has facilitated this step. Nowadays the market is flooded with different types of rotary instruments. The present study compared the root dentinal crack formation with continuous rotating versus reciprocating root canal preparation methods. One hundred and fifty freshly extracted teeth were used for the study. They were divided into 5 groups with 30 teeth in each group. Thirty teeth were kept under control group A and no root canal preparation was done for this group. Another 30 teeth were prepared with hand files which were kept under control group B. In the experimental groups (sample size, n=30 each) root canals were prepared with ProTaper, K3XF rotary system and WaveOne. Sectioning of these teeth was done at 3, 6 and 9mm from the apex and were evaluated for the presence of any defects. Root dentinal cracks were produced with each type of rotary instruments. Statistical analysis showed no significant difference in root dentinal crack formation between control groups and WaveOne system. There was statistically significant difference in root dentinal crack formation when the canals were prepared with ProTaper and K3XF rotary system. So it was concluded, that continuous rotating instruments could produce dentinal crack formation. Root canal instruments with reciprocating movement appear to be a better option than continuous rotation movement.

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.…”

“…We found that they were homogeneous. In this way, 5 studies 22,[24][25][26]28) were eligible to be in the ProTaper vs. WaveOne group. The results indicated that the WaveOne system produced fewer dentinal cracks, with a total RR of 1.74 (p=0.0005, I 2 =39%).…”

“…However, others stated that there was no significant difference in dentinal crack formation between these two systems [23][24][25] . The results of some experiments even indicated that full-sequence rotary-file instruments were associated with more dentinal defects than reciprocating single-file systems [26][27][28] . To identify a more secure endodontic instrument with diminished dentinal defect generation, we conducted this study to compare the incidence of dentinal cracks during root canal shaping with reciprocating single-file instruments (Reciproc and WaveOne) and full-sequence rotary-file instruments (ProTaper Universal and Mtwo).…”