World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 10 , ISSUE 4 ( July-August, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Centering Ability of Three Different Endodontic Instruments Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study

Vignesh Palanisamy, Arathi Rao, Ramya Shenoy, Karuna Y Mahabala, Suprabha B Srikrishna

Keywords : Canal preparation, Centering, Cone-beam computed tomography, Root canal therapy

Citation Information : Palanisamy V, Rao A, Shenoy R, Mahabala KY, Srikrishna SB. Comparison of Centering Ability of Three Different Endodontic Instruments Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study. World J Dent 2019; 10 (4):306-309.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1654

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2014

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: Centering ability of an instrument is the ability of the instrument to act centrally inside the canal without deflections. This property is of significance in assessment of any endodontic file because endodontic accidents due to instrumentation, commonly apical transportation can be avoided in case of a perfectly centered instrument. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to compare three different endodontic files, K File, Hand ProTaper, and Rotary ProTaper for their centering ability using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: On 30 extracted mandibular premolars, 3 reference lines were created from the apex. Preoperative CBCT images were made and analyzed. D1 and D2 are the centering ratios measured buccolingually and mesiodistally, following which the samples were randomly allotted to one of the three groups (K File, Hand ProTaper, and Rotary ProTaper) for instrumentation. Postoperative images were obtained and canal dimensions were assessed. The differences were calculated and the centering ability was determined using the centering ratio formula. Comparison was done using ANOVA test. Results: The mean working length of all the samples was 20.8 mm. The average preoperative D1 and D2 values obtained were 0.0067 and 0.0117, respectively. Following instrumentation, the obtained D1 and D2 values in group I, group II, and group III were 0.0048 and 1.07, 0.783 and 1.24, and 0.785 and 0.96, respectively. Intergroup comparison showed insignificant p value (p > 0.05). Conclusion: K File, Hand ProTaper, and Rotary ProTaper were equally efficient to act centrally in straight canals. Clinical significance: Centering ability of an instrument is of significance in avoiding accidents such as canal transportation. K File, Hand ProTaper, and Rotary ProTaper were found to be equally efficient to act centrally in straight canals.

PDF Share
  1. Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, et al. Canal-centering ability: An endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(1):3–9. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.53334.
  2. Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, et al. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(6):561–565. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.144605.
  3. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22(7):369–375. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80221-4.
  4. Boutsioukis C, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, et al. Evaluation of irrigant flow in the root canal using different needle types by an unsteady computational fluid dynamics model. J Endod 2010;36(5):875–879. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.026.
  5. Sobhani OE, Gulabivala K, Knowles JC, et al. The effect of irrigation time, root morphology and dentine thickness on tooth surface strain when using 5% sodium hypochlorite and 17% EDTA. Int Endod J 2010;43(3):190–199. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01655.x.
  6. Lopes DS, Pessoa MA, Aguiar CM. Assessment of the Centralization of Root Canal Preparation with Rotary Systems. Acta Stomatol Croat 2016;50(3):242–250. DOI: 10.15644/asc50/3/7.
  7. Yang YM, Guo B, Guo LY, et al. CBCT-Aided Microscopic and Ultrasonic Treatment for Upper or Middle Thirds Calcified Root Canals. Biomed Res Int 2016;2016:4793146. DOI: 10.1155/2016/4793146.
  8. McCabe PS, Dummer PMH. Pulp canal obliteration: an endodontic diagnosis and treatment challenge. Int Endod J 2012;45(2):177–197. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01963.x.
  9. Sanfelice CM, da Costa FB, Só MVR, et al. Effects of four instruments on coronal pre-enlargement by using cone beam computed tomography. J Endod 2010;36:858–861. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.003.
  10. Gundappa M, Bansal R, Khoriya S, et al. Root canal centering ability of rotary cutting nickel titanium instruments: A meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:504–509. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.144567.
  11. Kishore A, Gurtu A, Bansal R, et al. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of Twisted Files, HyFlex controlled memory, and Wave One using computed tomography scan: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2017;20(3):161–165. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_110_16.
  12. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1998;14:346–351. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(88)80196-1.
  13. Maitin N, Arunagiri D, Brave D, et al. An ex vivo comparative analysis on shaping ability of four NiTi Rotary endodontic instrument using spiral computed tomography. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:219–223. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.111318.
  14. Paleker F, van der Vyver PJ. Comparison of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of K-files, ProGlider File, and G-Files: A Micro-Computed Tomography Study of Curved Root Canals. J Endod 2016;42(7):1105–1109. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.005.
  15. Aguiar CM, Donida FA, Camara AC, et al. Changes in root canal anatomy using three nickel-titanium rotary system - A cone beam computed tomography analysis. Braz J Oral Sci 2013;12(4):307–312. DOI: 10.1590/S1677-32252013000400006.
  16. Durack C, Patel S. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2012;23:179–191. DOI: 10.1590/S0103-64402012000300001.
  17. Glossen CR, Hiller RH, Dove B, et al. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995;21:146–151.
  18. Kum KY, Spängberg L, Cha BY, et al. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000;26:719–723.
  19. Jain A, Bahuguna R. Root canal morphology of mandibular first premolar in a gujarati population - an in vitro study. Dent Res J 2011;8(3):118–122.
  20. Pettiette MT, Metzger Z, Phillips C, et al. Endodontic complications of root canal therapy performed by dental students with stainless-steel K-files and nickel-titanium hand files. J Endod 1999;25(4):230–234. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80148-4.
  21. Swarnkar A. A Comparison of Canal-centering ability of Two Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems with Nickel Hand Instrumentation with Stainless Steel Hand Instrumentation in 10 to 25° Curved Canals using Kuttler's Cube. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2014;7(3):157–162. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1256.
  22. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of shaping abilities of 4 Ni-Ti rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:228–233. DOI: 10.1067/moe.2003.92.
  23. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, et al. Progressive vs constant tapered shaft design using Ni-Ti rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36:288–295. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003. 00650.x.
  24. Miglani S, Gopikrishna V, Parameswaran A, et al. Canal centering ability of two Ni-Ti rotary systems compared with SS hand instrumentation in curved canals using Kuttler's endodontic cube-An in vitro study. Endodontology 2004;16:42–48.
  25. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, et al. Comparative study of six rotary Ni-Ti systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005;38:743–752. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005. 01010.x.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.