World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  15 (2024)
Volume  14 (2023)
Volume  13 (2022)
Volume  12 (2021)
Volume  11 (2020)
Volume  10 (2019)
Volume  9 (2018)
Volume  8 (2017)
Volume  7 (2016)
Volume  6 (2015)
Volume  5 (2014)
Volume  4 (2013)
Volume  3 (2012)
Volume  2 (2011)
Volume  1 (2010)
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of the Centering Ability and Canal Transportation of Rotary File Systems in Different Kinematics Using CBCT

Nupur R Vasava, Shreya H Modi, Chintan Joshi, Mona C Somani, Sweety J Thumar, Aashray A Patel, Anisha D Parmar, Kruti M Jadawala

Keywords : Apical transportation, Centering ability, Cone beam computed tomography, Nickel-titanium rotary files

Citation Information : Vasava NR, Modi SH, Joshi C, Somani MC, Thumar SJ, Patel AA, Parmar AD, Jadawala KM. Evaluation of the Centering Ability and Canal Transportation of Rotary File Systems in Different Kinematics Using CBCT. World J Dent 2023; 14 (11):983-990.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2332

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 16-01-2024

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To assess various rotary file systems’ centering ability and canal transportation in the curved root of mandibular molars in rotary and reciprocating motions using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: A total of 60 extracted mandibular molars having 30° curved roots were decoronated. After initial biomechanical preparation, samples were divided into three groups and two subgroups based on the file systems and kinematics used to prepare the canal: Vortex Blue files from groups Ia and Ib, Mtwo files from groups IIa and IIb, and ProTaper Next files from groups IIIa and IIIb were employed in rotary and reciprocating motion, respectively. Pre- and postinstrumentation scans using CBCT were carried out to evaluate the canal transportation and centering at three canal levels. The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test and associated post hoc test were used to analyze the results. Result: In the rotary motion, Vortex Blue file showed the highest centering ability (1.24 ± 0.54) at 6 mm root level with a statistically significant difference between ProTaper Next (p = 0.005), while for canal transportation, Vortex Blue file showed the highest value (0.14 ± 0.16 mm) at 3 mm root apex with statistically significant difference between ProTaper Next file (p = 0.027). In the reciprocating motion, no statistically significant differences were found between the three file systems in the centering ability and canal transportation at three canal levels (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The Vortex Blue file showed the most significant apical transportation in rotary motion. The Mtwo and ProTaper Next files caused the highest canal transportation at the middle and coronal third of the root region, respectively, in both motions. Clinical significance: The rotary files showed roughly the same level of canal preparation when used in a reciprocating motion, but when used in a rotary motion, the file design has a bigger influence on canal preparation than the motion.

HTML PDF Share
  1. Schäfer E, Diez C, Hoppe W, et al. Roentgenographic investigation of frequency and degree of canal curvatures in human permanent teeth. J Endod 2002;28(3):211–212. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200203000-00017
  2. Zheng QH, Zhou XD, Jiang Y, et al. Radiographic investigation of frequency and degree of canal curvatures in Chinese mandibular permanent incisors. J Endod 2009;35(2):175–178. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.028
  3. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Barletta FB, et al. Identification of apical and cervical curvature radius of human molars. Braz Dent J 2015;26(4):351–356. DOI: 10.1590/0103-64402013x0252
  4. Pansheriya E, Goel M, Gupta KD, et al. Comparative evaluation of apical transportation and canal centric ability in apical region of newer nickel-titanium file systems using cone-beam computed tomography on extracted molars: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(Suppl 2):S215–S220. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_17_18
  5. Saberi E, Aramesh B. Computed tomography evaluation of root canal transportation using ProTaper, Race and Sendoline rotary systems: an ex vivo study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent 2018;10:93–98. DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S160054
  6. Campanella V, Gianni L, Libonati A, et al. Shaping ability of Reciproc R25 file and Mtwo system used in continuous and reciprocating motion. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020;21(2):171–177. PMID: 32381823.
  7. Kapalas A, Lambrianidis T. Factors associated with root canal ledging during instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000;16(5):229–231. DOI: 10.1034/j.1600-9657.2000.016005229.x
  8. Park HJ, Seo MS, Moon YM. Root canal volume change and transportation by Vortex Blue, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Universal in curved root canals. Restor Dent Endod 2017;43(1):e3. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2018.43.e3
  9. Venino PM, Citterio CL, Pellegatta A, et al. A micro-computed tomography evaluation of the shaping ability of two nickel-titanium instruments, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next. J Endod 2017; 43(4):628–632. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.022
  10. Azar MR, Safi L, Nikaein A. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and Pro Taper rotary systems and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2012;9(2):146–151. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.95227
  11. Mesgarani A, Hamidi MR, Haghanifar S, et al. Comparison of apical transportation and centering ability of Mtwo and Reciproc R25 in severely curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2018;15(1):57–62. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.223620
  12. Duke F, Shen Y, Zhou H, et al. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile Vortex and Vortex Blue nickel-titanium files in single and double curvatures. J Endod 2015;41(10):1686–1690. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.06.012
  13. Aminsobhani M, Avval AR, Hamidzadeh F. Evaluation of curved canal transportation using the neoniti rotary system with reciprocal motion: a comparative study. Int J Dent 2021;2021:4877619. DOI: 10.1155/2021/4877619
  14. Delgoshayi N, Abbasi M, Bakhtiar H, et al. Canal transportation and centering ability of ProTaper and SafeSider in preparation of curved root canals: a CBCT evaluation. Iran Endod J 2018;13(2):240. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v13i2.19200
  15. Özer SY. Comparison of root canal transportation induced by three rotary systems with noncutting tips using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;111(2):244–250. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.08.017
  16. Kfir A, Tsesis I, Yakirevich E, et al. The efficacy of five techniques for removing root filling material: microscopic versus radiographic evaluation. Int Endod J 2012;45(1):35–41. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01944.x
  17. Backman CA, Oswald RJ, Pitts DL. A radiographic comparison of two root canal instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1992; 18(1):19–24. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81137-4
  18. Zarean P, Özcan M, Zarean P, et al. Micro-computed tomographic assessment of microcrack formation before and after instrumentation of curved root canals with neoniti rotary files. Materials (Basel) 2022;15(9):3002. DOI: 10.3390/ma15093002
  19. Constante IG, Davidowicz H, Barletta FB, et al. Location and angulation of curvatures of mesiobucal canals of mandibular molars debrided by three endodontic techniques. Braz Oral Res 2007;21(1):22–28. DOI: 10.1590/s1806-83242007000100004
  20. Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(1):35–39. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.124127
  21. Priya NT, Chandrasekhar V, Anita S, et al. ”Dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation” a comparative evaluation with hand, rotary and reciprocating instrumentation. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(12):ZC70–ZC72. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/11437.5349
  22. Arslan H, Alsancak M, Doğanay E, et al. Cyclic fatigue analysis of Reciproc R25® instruments with different kinematics. Aust Endod J 2016;42(1):22–24. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12115
  23. Grande NM, Ahmed HM, Cohen S, et al. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: a comprehensive review-part I: historic perspectives and current applications. J Endod 2015;41(11):1778–1783. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.06.014
  24. Shivashankar MB, Niranjan NT, Jayasheel A, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of canal transportation and volumetric changes in root canal dentin of curved canals using Mtwo, ProTaper and ProTaper Next rotary system-an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2016;10(11):ZC10–ZC14. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2016/20373.8788
  25. van der Vyver PJ, Paleker F, et al. Root canal shaping using nickel titanium, M-wire, and gold wire: a micro-computed tomographic comparative study of one shape, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne Gold instruments in maxillary first molars. J Endod 2019;45(1):62–67. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2018.09.013
  26. Gagliardi J, Versiani MA, de Sousa-Neto MD, et al. Evaluation of the shaping characteristics of ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT, and ProTaper Universal in curved canals. J Endod 2015;41(10):1718–1724. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.07.009
  27. Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with Protaper NEXT instruments with and without glide path. J Endod 2014;40(12):2053–2056. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.001
  28. Plotino G, Grande NM, Cotti E, et al. Blue treatment enhances cyclic fatigue resistance of vortex nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 2014;40(9):1451–1453. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.020
  29. Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC, et al. Comparison of the centering ability of Wave·One and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(1):21–25. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.21
  30. Htun PH, Ebihara A, Maki K, et al. Comparison of torque, force generation and canal shaping ability between manual and nickel-titanium glide path instruments in rotary and optimum glide path motion. Odontology 2020;108(2):188–193. DOI: 10.1007/s10266-019-00455-1
  31. Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012;37(4):220–227. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2012.37.4.220
  32. Pagliosa A, Sousa-Neto MD, Versiani MA, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of rotary systems on the root canal transportation and centering ability. Braz Oral Res 2015;29:1–7. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107BOR-2015.vol29.0039
  33. Freire LG, Gavini G, Branco-Barletta F, et al. Microscopic computerized tomographic evaluation of root canal transportation prepared with twisted or ground nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112(6):e143–e148. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2011.06.029
  34. Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000;26(4):210–216. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200004000-00003
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.