The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Evaluation of Root Canal Cleaning and Shaping Efficacy of Three Engine-driven Instruments: SafeSider, ProTaper Universal and Lightspeed LSX

Ronald Wigler, Tal Koren, Igor Tsesis

Citation Information : Wigler R, Koren T, Tsesis I. Evaluation of Root Canal Cleaning and Shaping Efficacy of Three Engine-driven Instruments: SafeSider, ProTaper Universal and Lightspeed LSX. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (11):910-914.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1780

Published Online: 01-11-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To compare the cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability of SafeSider, ProTaper Universal and Lightspeed rotary instruments during the preparation of curved root canals in extracted human teeth.

Materials and methods

A total of 63 roots with curved root canals were divided into three groups. Canals were prepared using SafeSider, ProTaper Universal or Lightspeed LSX. Using pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs, straightening of the canal curvatures and loss of working length were determined with a computer image analysis program.

The amounts of debris at the apical 5 mm were quantified on the basis of a numerical evaluation scale. The data were analyzed statistically using the two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results

There was significantly more transportation among the Lightspeed LSX group compared to the SafeSider and ProTaper Universal groups only at the 4 mm level (p < 0.05). The ProTaper Universal instruments performed significantly faster than other groups. No significant differences were observed between the three engine-driven instruments with regards to debris removal.

Conclusion

SafeSider, ProTaper Universal and Lightspeed LSX rotary instruments maintained the original canal curvature well at the apical 3 mm and were safe to use. No difference was found in cleaning efficacy and none rendered the apical part of the canal free of debris.

Clinical significance

SafeSider, ProTaper Universal and Lightspeed LSX rotary instruments are safe to use in curved root canals.

How to cite this article

Wigler R, Koren T, Tsesis I. Evaluation of Root Canal Cleaning and Shaping Efficacy of Three Engine- Driven Instruments: SafeSider, ProTaper Universal and Lightspeed LSX. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(11):910-914.


PDF Share
  1. Efficacy of three techniques in cleaning the apical portion of curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 1995;79:492-496.
  2. Mechanical reduction of the bacterial population in the root canal by three instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1999;25:332-335.
  3. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000;26:210-216.
  4. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endodontic Topics 2005;10:30-76.
  5. Ledge formation: review of a great challenge in endodontics. J Endod 2007;33:1155-1162.
  6. A comparative study of the effects of two nickel-titanium preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by microcomputed tomography. J Endod 2007;33:1455-1459.
  7. Pathways of the pulp: Chapter 10—cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. 10th ed. 2011.
  8. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37:359-364.
  9. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2005;38:8-16.
  10. A comparison of LightSpeed LS1 and LightSpeed LSX NiTi rotary instruments in apical transportation and length control in simulated root canals. J Endod 2007;33:268-271.
  11. Comparison of the canal centring ability of K3, Liberator and EZ Fill Safesiders by using spiral computed tomography. Aust Endod J 2012;38(2):55-59.
  12. Comparison of apical transportation in four NiTi rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 2003;29(9):587-591.
  13. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1997;23:77-85.
  14. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of passive sonic activation and passive ultrasonic activation after hand instrumentation in molar root canals. J Endod 1999;25:735-738.
  15. Cleaning efficiency of nickel-titanium GT and 0.04 rotary files when used in a torque-controlled rotary handpiece. J Endod 2003;29:346-348.
  16. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endod 1987;13:243-245.
  17. An application framework of three-dimensional reconstruction and measurement for endodontic research. J Endod 2009;35:269-274.
  18. Changes in root canal geometry after preparation assessed by high-resolution computed tomography. J Endod 2001;27:1-6.
  19. A new software for dimensional measurements in 3D endodontic root canal instrumentation. Ann Ist Super Sanita 2012;48(1):42-48.
  20. Hard-tissue debris accumulation analysis by high-resolution computed tomography scans. J Endod 2009;35:1044-1047.
  21. Accumulated hard tissue debris levels in mesial roots of mandibular molars after sequential irrigation steps. Int Endod J 2011;44:148-153.
  22. A comparative study of root canal preparation using Profile 0.04 and Lightspeed rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35:37-46.
  23. tulsadentalspecialties.com .
  24. The ProTaper Universal technique. Endodontic Topics 2005;10:187-190.
  25. Comparative study of root-canal preparation using Lightspeed and Quantec SC rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36:748-756.
  26. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of five instrumentation techniques for cleaning the apical third of root canals. J Endod 1997;23:499-502.
  27. The effectiveness of manual and rotary techniques in the cleaning of root canals: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 2001;34:533-537.
  28. The quality of apical canal preparation using hand and rotary instruments with specific criteria for enlargement based on initial apical file size. J Endod 2002;28:658-664.
  29. To evaluate the effect of two passive ultrasonic irrigation methods on removal of dentin debris from root canal systems using computational fluid dynamics study model. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev. Vol. 2014, 2014.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.