Separation Incidence of Protaper Rotary Instruments: A Large Cohort Clinical Evaluation

Wolcott, Susan; Wolcott, James; Ishley, David; Kennedy, Wade; Johnson, Scott; Minnich, Scott; Meyers, John

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.015

Cited by 90 publications

(99 citation statements)

References 20 publications

(31 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies have suggested different number of uses for a NiTi instrument (8,(13)(14)(15) due to the different types of instruments and several research protocols used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility of K3 and ProTaper universal instruments

Grazziotin‐Soares

Filho²,

Vanni

et al. 2011

Braz. Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used a mechanical test to evaluate the flexibility of instruments from the K3 (conicity 0.04) and the ProTaper Universal systems when they were new and after 5 uses in simulated canals. Five sets of instruments of each system were tested: K3 (15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45) and ProTaper Universal (S1, S2, F1, F2, F3, F4 and F5). Each set of instruments was used to prepare a simulated canal and the same set of instruments was used 5 times (50 canals). The number of each subgroup represented the number of uses: 0 (control), 1, 3 and 5 uses. Before and after each use, the instruments were submitted to a mechanical flexibility test performed in a Versat 502 universal testing machine. Interactions between the instrument and the number of uses were analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey's test at a 5% level of significance. Instruments from both systems presented lower flexibility after the third use compared to the flexibility obtained after uses 0 and 1 (p<0.05), and maintained the same flexibility after the fifth use. The flexibility of instruments from the K3 system decreased with the increase of diameter, irrespective of the number of uses. Among the instruments from the ProTaper Universal system, the shaping files presented greater flexibility than the finishing files. F2 and F3 were the least flexible instruments, and F4 and F5 presented flexibility values similar to those of F1.

show abstract

“…Studies have suggested different number of uses for a NiTi instrument (8,(13)(14)(15) due to the different types of instruments and several research protocols used.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Flexibility of K3 and ProTaper universal instruments

Grazziotin‐Soares

Filho²,

Vanni

et al. 2011

Braz. Dent. J.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…ProTaper rotary files fractures are more prevalent in molars than in premolars or anterior teeth (4,12). Among the shaping ProTaper files, the S1 file is more frequently fractured during root canal instrumentation (4).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Obturation Over an S1 ProTaper Instrument Fragment in a Mandibular Molar with Three Years of Follow-up

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper describes root canal filling performed over a large S1 ProTaper file fragment in a second mandibular molar with irreversible pulpitis. An S1 ProTaper file was fractured during the instrumentation of the mesiobuccal canal. Approximately 10 mm of file fragment remained in the apical and middle thirds of the canal. The obturation was performed over this fragment using thermomechanically compacted gutta-percha and sealer. Radiographic findings and the absence of clinical signs and symptoms at 3-year follow up indicated successful treatment. Cone-beam computed tomography images revealed absence of periapical lesion and details of intracanal file fragment related to root fillings and apex morphology. In this case, the presence of a large intracanal fractured instrument did not have a negative impact on the endodontic prognosis during the follow up evaluation period.

show abstract

“…22 The size of the rotary file determines how many times it should be used. 23 As the diameter of the file increases, the force needed to unwind or fracture also increases. 24 However, clinically large instruments that are used many times should be reused with great care or be discarded.…”

Section: Size and Cross-sectional Shapementioning

confidence: 99%