World Journal of Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 8 , ISSUE 1 ( January-February, 2017 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Dentinal Defects induced by Hand Files, Multiple, and Single Rotary Files: A Stereomicroscopic Study

Bharat Choudhary, Atul Jain, Kanchan Bhadoria, Nakul Patidar

Citation Information : Choudhary B, Jain A, Bhadoria K, Patidar N. Comparison of Dentinal Defects induced by Hand Files, Multiple, and Single Rotary Files: A Stereomicroscopic Study. World J Dent 2017; 8 (1):45-48.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1409

Published Online: 01-06-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).



This study was carried out to compare the dentinal defects induced by single rotary file system, multiple rotary file system, and hand files.

Materials and methods

Sixty single-rooted premolars were selected based on predetermined criteria. They were divided into three groups: Group I (hand K files), group II (Hero Shaper), and group III (One Shape). Biomechanical preparation was carried out as per the manufacturer's instructions. Each specimen was sectioned horizontally and divided into apical, middle, and coronal sections. These sections were visualized under stereomicroscope to evaluate the dentinal defects using predetermined criteria.


Roots prepared with Hero Shaper showed more number of defects than One Shape, whereas in roots prepared with hand files lowest percentage of dentinal defects were present. There was statistically significant difference between the Hero Shaper group and the One Shape group (p < 0.05).


All rotary files induce defects in root dentin, whereas the hand instruments induce minimal defects.

Clinical significance

With single rotary file system, preparation time is reduced and it is easier for patients to accept the treatment. Moreover, the potential of root fracture is reduced.

How to cite this article

Jain A, Bhadoria K, Choudhary B, Patidar N. Comparison of Dentinal Defects induced by Hand Files, Multiple, and Single Rotary Files: A Stereomicroscopic Study. World J Dent 2017;8(1):45-48.

PDF Share
  1. Evaluation of micro crack formation in root canals after instrumentation with different NiTi rotary file systems: a scanning electron microscopy study. Scanning 2015 Jan-Feb;37(1):49-53.
  2. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod 2012 Feb;38(2):232-235.
  3. Morphological analysis of apical foramen over-instrumented by three rotary NiTi systems. Chin J Dent Res 2014;17(2): 111-116.
  4. In vitro evaluation of dentinal Microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi systems. IJRD 2014;3(2):43-47.
  5. The incidence of dentinal microcracks caused by hand versus different rotary instruments after biomechanical preparation: an in vitro study. World J Pharama Life Sci 2016;2(2):145-153.
  6. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod 2010 Jul;36(7):1195-1199.
  7. Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 2010 Apr;36(4):609-617.
  8. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod 2009 Feb;35(2):236-238.
  9. The effect of root canal preparation on the development of dentin cracks. Iran Endod J 2012 Oct;7(4):177-182.
  10. Effect of root canal preparation, type of endodontic post and mechanical cycling on root fracture strength. J Appl Oral Sci 2014 Jun;22(3):165-173.
  11. Single file systems: a review. Int J Sci Stud 2015;2(11):169-172.
  12. Micro–computed tomographic assessment on the effect of protaper next and twisted file adaptive systems on dentinal cracks. J Endod 2015 Jul;41(7):1116-1119.
  13. Evaluation of dentinal defect formation after root canal preparation with two reciprocating systems and hand instruments: an in vitro study. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 2015 Mar;29(2):368-373.
  14. A comparative evaluation of effect of instrument design on inducing root fracture – an in-vitro study. Arch Dent Med Res 2015;1(2):1-13.
  15. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007 Sep;40(9):707-714.
  16. A comparative study of endoflare – Hero Shaper and Mtwo NiTi instruments in the preparation of curved root canals. Int Endod J 2005 Sep;38(9):610-616.
  17. WaveOne and One Shape files: survival in severely curved artificial canals. Global J Med Res 2014 Aug;14(4).
  18. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary ProTaper, One Shape system and WaveOne system using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014 Nov;17(6):561-565.
  19. Influence of instrument taper on the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated roots. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006 Jan;101(1):126-131.
  20. NV, Kumar CS, Madhusudhana K, Mathew VB, Reddy ECA, Babu TL. Evaluation of dentinal damage after root canal preparation with protaper universal, twisted files and Mtwo rotary systems – an in vitro study. Int J Med Appl Sci. 2014;3(4):146-151.
  21. A comparison of the effects of two canal preparation techniques on root fracture susceptibility and fracture pattern. J Endod 2005 Apr;31(4):283-287.
  22. To compare and evaluate the microcracks caused by 3 different single file systems versus the ProTaper next. Guident 2014 Sep;7(10).
  23. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different singlefile systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013 Aug;39(8):1054-1056.
  24. “Dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation” a comparative evaluation with hand, rotary and reciprocating instrumentation. J Clin Diagn Res 2014 Dec;8(12):ZC70-2.
  25. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, Reciproc and WaveOne instruments. Eur J Dent 2015 Oct-Dec;9(4):508-512.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.