Comparison of the fracture resistance of the teeth prepared with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Gold rotary files

Milani, Amin Salem; Ganjpour, Shabnam; Dehghani, Fatemeh; Rahimi, Saeed; Sabanik, Pouya

doi:10.1002/cre2.660

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 22 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Protaper Gold has a convex triangular cross-section and an increased taper size. 8 Being in line with Milani et al, 21 who showed that all of the ProTaper systems did not show different fracture resistance, this study revealed that preparation with the ProTaper systems (PN and PG) did not affect the fracture resistance of the teeth. Nonetheless, the fracture resistance of the teeth prepared using both systems was lower than that using HC.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files

Rinastiti

Widyastuti

Hadriyanto

2023

Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preparation of the root canal system is a crucial step in root canal treatment. Endodontically treated teeth differ structurally from healthy, untreated teeth. This can lead to root cracking by creating pressure on the canal wall, reducing the fracture resistance of the tooth. Different designs, including cross-sectional shape, tip, taper, flute, radial land, helix angle, rake angle, and pitch, can influence the outcome of the root canal preparation and the risk of root fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth after root canal preparation using three different NiTi rotary files: ProTaper Next (PN), ProTaper Gold (PG), and HyFlex CM (HC). Thirty premolars with a single and straight root canal were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction, leaving 14 mm of the root. The subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 10) was prepared using PN, group 2 (n = 10) was prepared using PG, and group 3 (n = 10) was prepared using HC. After instrumentation and irrigation, the specimens were subjected to a continuous vertical compressive force (crosshead-speed of 2.28 mm/sec) in order to record the force (in newtons) until root fracture. To describe the surface characteristic of the dentinal root after the preparation, a section fragment from the apical third of the specimens was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 2500x magnification. The micrographs were analyzed according to the Hulsman’s method. The results demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference in root fracture resistance among the three groups. (p = 0.043). The LSD post hoc test indicated that HC showed a higher root fracture resistance (p < 0.05) compared to both PN and PG. In conclusion, the different file systems of PN, PG, and HC instruments generate different root fracture resistance of teeth. In comparison to PN and PG, HC instruments tend to result in increased fracture resistance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 88%

“…A continuous vertical compressive force was applied at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/ min. 21 All the specimens were loaded until fracture. The maximum breaking loads by the universal testing machine were recorded in Newtons (N) with PC software connected to the loading machine.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files

Rinastiti

Widyastuti

Hadriyanto

2023

Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Comparison of the fracture resistance of the teeth prepared with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Gold rotary files

Milani

Ganjpour

Dehghani

et al. 2022

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: Root canal preparation can lead to cracks on the roots by creating stresses on the root canal walls, which decreases the fracture resistance of the tooth. The present study compared the fracture resistance of the teeth prepared by the ProTaper Universal (PTU), ProTaper Next (PTN), and ProTaper Gold (PTG) rotary file systems.Materials and Methods: Fifty-six single-canal premolar teeth were sectioned 14 mm from the root apex. The roots were standardized based on the buccolingual and mesiodistal diameter and randomly assigned to three experimental (n = 14) and one control group (n = 14). The teeth in three experimental groups were instrumented with PTU, PTN, and PTG rotary files. The roots in the control group were not instrumented.A vertical force was applied to each root in a universal testing machine until the root fractured. The data were statistically analyzed by one-way analysis of variance.Results: There was no significant difference in the fracture resistance of the teeth between the control, PTU, PTN, and PTG groups (p = .115).Conclusions: Root canal preparation with ProTaper files manufactured with conventional NiTi (PTU) and heat-treated alloys (PTN and PTG) did not affect the fracture resistance of teeth.

show abstract

Comparison of the fracture resistance of the teeth prepared with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Gold rotary files

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files

Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files

Comparison of the fracture resistance of the teeth prepared with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Gold rotary files

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About