Root canal instrumentation efficacy of non-fused and fused primary molar roots: a micro-computed tomography study

Dalzell, O; Ariffin, S. Mohd; Patrick, Cameron; Hardiman, Rita; Manton, David J.; Parashos, Peter; Rajan, Sadna

doi:10.1007/s40368-021-00641-2

Cited by 4 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(82 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Compared with the results of our study in terms of the evaluated parameters, there are a few studies, which evaluated the efficacy of manual and rotary instrumentation in primary molar teeth. 34,35 In contrast to the present findings, Esenturk et al 34 compared rotary instrumentation systems (OneShape and Revo-S) and K-files and demonstrated that most of the root canal walls remained untouched (76.5%) irrespective of the preparation system used. Whereas one rotary system (Revo-S) showed better results than hand K-files, the other (OneShape) had a similar untouched surface area when compared to hand K-files.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

“…Whereas one rotary system (Revo‐S) showed better results than hand K‐files, the other (OneShape) had a similar untouched surface area when compared to hand K‐files. Dalzell et al 35 reported that the untouched canal surface areas in both nonfused and fused primary teeth were 62% and 69.2% with Mtwo, Reciproc Blue, and K‐files root canal preparation without differences between the root canal preparation protocols. These contradictory results may be explained by differences in method, preparation technique, and sample selection.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Shaping ability of novel nickel‐titanium systems in printed primary molars

Topal

Falakaloğlu

Silva

et al. 2022

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Manual or mechanized instruments can be used for root canal preparation. Manual instrumentation using K-files is widely used in primary teeth, but there are many limitations. Mechanized root canal preparation can lead to easy access to all canals, decrease instrumentation time, and result in more funnel-shaped root canals, resulting in a more predictable uniform paste fill.Aim: This study aimed to evaluate the shaping ability and instrumentation time of VDW.ROTATE™ and EdgeTaper Platinum™ during the preparation of resinprinted primary molars. Hand K-files were used as a reference for comparison.Design: Sixty-six resin-based maxillary second primary molars, obtained from extracted tooth cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) image and printed on a three-dimensional printer, were divided into three groups: VDW.ROTATE™, EdgeTaper Platinum™, and K-files. The specimens were scanned using CBCT imaging before and after root canal preparation. Images were registered using a dedicated software, and changes (Δ) in the canal area, volume, and untouched canal surface were calculated. Instrumentation time was evaluated. Data were statistically analyzed using the SPSS program.Results: There was no significant difference among the tested file systems for Δ canal volume and area (p > .05). VDW.ROTATE™, however, showed significantly lower untouched canal surface area than other systems in all roots (p < .001).The VDW.ROTATE™ was found to be significantly faster (6.47 ± 0.39 min) than EdgeTaper Platinum™ (7.71 ± 0.73 min) and K-files (8.22 ± 0.72 min), (p < .05). Conclusions:The shaping ability and the instrumentation time were directly influenced by the root canal instrumentation system used during the preparation of resin-printed primary molars, with VDW.ROTATE™ being the faster system and associated with the lower amount of untouched canal surface area.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping ability of novel nickel‐titanium systems in printed primary molars

Topal

Falakaloğlu

Silva

et al. 2022

Int J Paed Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the simulated root canals allowed direct visual comparison of the shaping ability of the tested Ni-Ti instruments. In recent years, micro-computed tomographic (M-CBCT) three-dimensional analysis has been used in some studies to evaluate the shaping effects of the instruments [15][16][17][18]. Considering M-CBCT's high cost, extensive data, and complicated analysis, the present study used the classic method of superimposition of two-dimensional images to give comparable results for the evaluation of shaping effects of the instruments in S-shaped simulated canals.…”

Section: Selection Of Sample and Evaluative Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Shaping ability of five continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments in multi-curved root canals: an ex vivo study based on simulated resin blocks

Su,

Li,

Wang

et al. 2024

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: The aim of this study was to comparatively evaluate the shaping ability of five continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments when preparing root canals exhibiting multiple curvatures. Methods: A total of 60 resin-simulated S-shaped root canals (coronal curve; 22°-23° curvature, 5 mm radius and apical curve; 21°-22° curvature and 4 mm radius) were divided into five groups (n=12). The root canals were prepared one of the following five Ni-Ti alloy instruments: Mtwo, Mtwo Blue, Protaper Next, Hyflex CM and Twisted File to the size/taper at 25#/.06. One-way analysis of variance was used for the statistical analysis, with a significance threshold of p<0.05. Results: Instrument fractures and procedural preparation errors were not observed during canal preparation. Regarding canal deviation and centering ability, the use of Mtwo instruments resulted in a significantly higher deviation and weaker centering ability than the other four groups (p<0.05). At some measurement points, the Twisted File and Hyflex CM showed significantly smallest deviation in the tested instruments (p < 0.05). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, all instruments performed well, and the Twisted File and Hyflex CM instruments demonstrated a particularly strong shaping ability in resin-simulated S-shaped root canals.

show abstract

“…The roots that fuse also determine the fusion type and are used by several studies categorizing fusion morphology into 6–7 distinct types (Martins et al, 2016; Zhang et al, 2017). In the Zhang et al modification of Yang et al classification (Yang et al, 1988), the number of fused roots increases from type 1 to 6, which has a single conical root (Dalzell et al, 2021). The frequency of different fusion types seems to vary according to the ethnicity of the patients, sample size, and the evaluation method, as the fusion of buccal roots (Type 1) is the most frequently reported fusion type over all the studies (Aydin, 2021; Kim et al, 2012; Martins et al, 2016; Ordinola‐Zapata et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dentine thickness in maxillary fused molars depends on the fusion type: An ex vivo micro‐computed tomography study

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim The present study aimed to determine and compare the dentine thickness around the root canals of maxillary molars with fusion using micro‐computed tomography (micro‐CT). Methodology A total of 120 fused maxillary molars having more than a single canal with distinct canal orifices near the cementoenamel junction were selected from a pool of extracted maxillary molars, which were scanned on a micro‐CT device (SkyScan 1172, Bruker‐microCT). The minimum dentine thickness around the root canals in furcal direction was measured using CTAn software (v.1.18.8 Bruker‐microCT) at each millimetre. The specimens were grouped according to their fusion type, and dentine thickness around the canals was compared. The data were statistically analysed using anova and post hoc Tukey–Kramer tests following an assessment of the normality of their distribution with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test (p < .05). Results Dentine thickness showed a statistically significant decrease at 2 mm apical to the orifice level irrespective of fusion type. The minimum dentine thickness values were detected around the second mesiobuccal canal as 0.30 mm at 6 mm below orifice. Dentine thickness around the mesiobuccal canal was significantly greater in fusion type 1 than those of types 2 and 3 (p < .05), while those of distobuccal and palatal canals were significantly thinner in type 3 fusion compared with type 1 or 6 (pDentine thickness showed a statistically significant decrease at 2 mm apical to the orifice level irrespective of fusion type. The minimum dentine thickness values were detected around the second mesiobuccal canal as 0.30 mm at 6 mm below orifice. Dentine thickness around the mesiobuccal canal was significantly greater in fusion type 1 than those of types 2 and 3 ( Conclusion Minimum dentine thickness values at the danger zone of distobuccal and palatal canals change according to the fusion type in fused maxillary second molars.

show abstract

Root canal instrumentation efficacy of non-fused and fused primary molar roots: a micro-computed tomography study

Abstract: Root canal instrumentation efficacy of non-fused and fused primary molar roots: a micro-computed tomography study. European archives of paediatric dentistry, 1-17.

Cited by 4 publications

References 30 publications

Shaping ability of novel nickel‐titanium systems in printed primary molars

Shaping ability of novel nickel‐titanium systems in printed primary molars

Shaping ability of five continuous rotary nickel-titanium instruments in multi-curved root canals: an ex vivo study based on simulated resin blocks

Dentine thickness in maxillary fused molars depends on the fusion type: An ex vivo micro‐computed tomography study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About