The effects of different nickel-titanium instruments on dentinal microcrack formations during root canal preparation

Abstract

Objective:The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence of dentinal microcracks caused by different preparation techniques.Materials and Methods:120 extracted human mandibular incisor teeth were divided into five experimental groups and one control group (n = 20): Group 1: Hand preparation with balanced force technique up to #25 K-file. Group 2: Preparation with only ProTaper F2 instrument in a reciprocating movement. Group 3: Preparation with Reciproc R25 instrument in a reciprocating movement. Group 4: Preparation with ProTaper instruments up to F2 instrument. Group 5: Preparation with ProTaper Next instruments up to X2 instrument. No procedure was applied to control group. The roots were sectioned horizontally at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex and examined. Absence or presence of dentinal microcracks was noted.Results:The Chi-square test was performed to compare the appearance of cracked roots between all groups. There were no significant differences among the groups (P > 0.05).Conclusions:In conclusion, except the hand file and control group, all experimental groups showed microcrack formations.

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.…”

“…Red, yellow, and green refer to high risk of bias, unclear risk of bias, and high risk of bias. 21,23,27) involving 270 teeth slices were included. Again, heterogeneity was considerable (p=0.01, I 2 =78%).…”

“…Red, green, and yellow refer to high risk of bias, low risk of bias, and unclear risk of bias, respectively. studies 23,27) were included. The results indicated that the Reciproc system produced fewer dentinal cracks, with a total RR of 2.36 (p=0.04, I 2 =0.0%).…”

“…Several researchers reported that fullsequence rotary-file instruments induce fewer dentinal cracks than reciprocating single-file systems 21,22) . 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] .…”