Micro-CT Evaluation of Non-instrumented Canal Areas with Different Enlargements Performed by NiTi Systems

The preparation techniques resulted in the same level of accumulated hard-tissue debris. Compared to the other tested systems, BioRace was associated with more untouched canal walls and Reciproc produced the greatest amount of removed dentine. Although it touched more of the root canal walls, the SAF system removed less dentine, whereas TRUShape had intermediate results for these same parameters. None of the systems tested were able to provide optimal shaping ability in oval-shaped canals.

show abstract

“…, De‐Deus et al . ). Amongst the tested systems, the SAF and Reciproc systems had the lowest percentage of untouched canal area.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, De‐Deus et al . ) and accumulated hard‐tissue debris in fins, isthmuses and irregularities within the root canal space (Paqué et al . , De‐Deus et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro‐CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval‐shaped canals

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In endodontics, image volume resulting from scanning of teeth, before and after cleaning and shaping procedures, can be geometrically co-registered into one coordinate system allowing identification and measurement of several important outcome parameters such as hard-tissue debris packed into root canal complexities (11)(12)(13), changes in canal volume (10), percentage of shaped canal walls (14), transportation degree (15) and spreadability of irrigants (16). Besides, micro-CT has already been successfully used to investigate cracks within tooth structure (17,18).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On the Causality Between Dentinal Defects and Root Canal Preparation: A Micro-CT Assessment

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study aimed to evaluate the cause-effect relationship between canal preparation with ProTaper Universal (PTU) system and dentinal defects formation using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) analysis. Forty mesial canals of mandibular molars with a type II Vertucci's canal configuration were scanned at an isotropic resolution of 14.16 µm. The sample was assigned to an experimental (n = 30) and a control (n = 10) groups, and the mesial canals were prepared with PTU system up to F2 instrument. The specimens from the experimental group were scanned and the cross-section images of the mesial roots, before and after preparation, were screened to identify the presence of dentinal defects. In the control group, the specimens were sectioned perpendicularly to the long axis of the root into 1-mm-thick slices (n = 80) and examined under optical microscope. Once a dentinal defect was detected, the slice was scanned through micro-CT. In the experimental group, dentinal micro-cracks were observed in 4,828 slices (24.04%). In all cross-section images, dentinal defects identified in the postoperative images were already present in the corresponding preoperative image. In the control group, 13 out of 80 slices (16.25%) had at least one dentinal defect visualized under stereomicroscopy, which was identified after a further micro-CT scanning. Micro-CT showed reliability as similar as optical microscopy in detecting dentinal defects, adding the possibility of tracking the dentinal tissue, before and after canal preparation, and providing a clear visualization of micro-cracks. Root canal preparation with PTU system did not induce the formation of new dentinal defects.

show abstract

“…Gergi et al ( 39 , 41 ) compared the root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas with Reciproc®, Wave One® and TF® size 25 files, finding no significant differences in non-instrumented areas (P>0.05), but better root canal anatomy preservation results with TF® (P<0.05). De-Deus et al ( 42 ) investigated non-instrumented areas for size 25 and 40 Reciproc®, Wave One® and BioRace® files and concluded that there were no significant differences between all any of the systems (P>0.05). Unlike Gergi et al and De-Deus et al, the present study found significant differences in non-instrumented areas in the middle and apical thirds, but Reciproc® was significantly better (P<0.05), probably due to its S cross-section, reciprocating movement and taper.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCAD

Rubio¹,

Zarzosa²,

Pallarés³

2017

Acta Stomatol Croat

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to compare the cutting are, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas of F360®, F6-SkyTaper®, Hyflex-EDM®, iRACE®, Neoniti®, O.Shape®, P.Next®, Reciproc®, Revo-S® and Wave-One-Gold® size 25 files.Materials and Methods300 teeth with a single straight root and a circular or elliptical root canal were divided into 10 groups (1-F360®, 2- F6-SkyTaper®, 3-Hyflex-EDM®, 4-iRACE®, 5-Neoniti®, 6-O.Shape®, 7-P.Next®, 8-Reciproc®, 9-Revo-S® and 10-Wave-One-Gold®) cut into 3 cross sections using an ultrafine cutting disc. They were photographed under a stereo microscope and preinstrumentation analyses were made before rebuilding the teeth with# 10 K- File and epoxy glue. A glide path was created with #10 and #15 K files and each group was instrumented using rotary or reciprocating systems. Cutting areas, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas were analyzed using the AutoCAD 2015 Levene's test, the Welch´s test, and the Games-Howell´s test. The Pearson’s chi-squared test was used for statistical analysis.ResultsLevene's test showed no equality of variances (P<0.05), therefore Welch´s and Games-Howell's tests were applied to cutting areas, showing significant differences in all thirds and overall (P<0.05). No differences in root canal anatomy preservation were observed (P>0.05). In non-instrumented areas, significant differences were found (P<0.05) in middle third being better in Reciproc®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®, and in apical thirds being higher P.Next®, Reciproc®, HyflexEDM®, Neoniti® and WaveOneGold®.ConclusionsIn cutting area, P.Next® and Reciproc® were superior in coronal third, Neoniti® and Hyflex EDM® medially and apically and Neoniti® and Reciproc® overall. Regarding the root canal anatomy preservation, all systems were similar. For non-instrumented areas, all systems achieved similar results coronally, but Reciproc®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in middle third and P.Next®, Reciproc®, Hyflex EDM®, Neoniti® and Wave One Gold® were superior in apically.

show abstract

Micro-CT Evaluation of Non-instrumented Canal Areas with Different Enlargements Performed by NiTi Systems

Cited by 93 publications

References 26 publications

Micro‐CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval‐shaped canals

Micro‐CT assessment of the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval‐shaped canals

On the Causality Between Dentinal Defects and Root Canal Preparation: A Micro-CT Assessment

Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCAD

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About