The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Dentin Removal after Instrumentation: A Micro-CT Evaluation

Mônica S de Albuquerque, Armiliana S Nascimento, Ivan O Gialain, Eliane A de Lima, Jeysiellen AF Nery, Poliana R de Souza Araujo, Rebeca F de Menezes, Augusto S Kato, Rodivan Braz

Keywords : Centering ability, Root canal treatment, Rotary instrumentation, Transportation

Citation Information : Albuquerque MS, Nascimento AS, Gialain IO, de Lima EA, Nery JA, Araujo PR, de Menezes RF, Kato AS, Braz R. Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Dentin Removal after Instrumentation: A Micro-CT Evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (7):806-811.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2601

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-08-2019

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


Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare root canal transportation, centering ability, and amount of dentin removed after root instrumentation with different rotary and reciprocating systems, using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Materials and methods: Forty curved mesial canals of lower molars were selected and divided into four experimental groups (n = 10) according to the system used: protaper next (PTN), wave one gold (WOG), prodesign logic (LOG), and vortex blue (VTX). The roots were scanned before and after instrumentation using micro-CT, with a 16 μm isotropic resolution. Results: Data were statistically analyzed using the Bioestat and the significance level was set at 0.05. For canal transportation, no significant differences were verified between the groups at 6 mm or 9 mm from the apex. At the apical third, LOG had a smaller mesial deviation when compared with PTN. A significant difference was found at the apical and coronal thirds, though with LOG having the best centering ability at the apical third and the worst one at the coronal third. All systems caused a greater wear at the coronal third (9 mm), decreasing at the apical one (3 mm), with statistically significant differences. LOG removed less dentin from the apical third (3 mm) than did the other instruments. Conclusion: The systems evaluated presented different results for canal transportation, centering ability, and dentin removal at each third. Clinical significance: The systems were evaluated together to evaluate neither the marked dental deviations nor the long-term signifiers of the databases and they were evaluated within the limits of normality. Therefore, they can be used without risks of embrittlement of the dental roots.

  1. Hulsmann M, Peters OA, et al. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 2005;10(1):30–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x.
  2. Plotino G, Grande NM, 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.
  3. Larsen CM, Watanabe I, et al. Cyclic fatigue analysis of a new generation of nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2009;35(3):401–403. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.12.010.
  4. Vaudt J, Bitter K, et al. Ex vivo study on root canal instrumentation of two rotary nickel–titanium systems in comparison to stainless steel hand instruments. Int Endod J 2009;42(1):22–23. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01489.x.
  5. Gambarini G, Testarelli L, et al. The influence of three different instrumentation techniques on the incidence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment. Ann Stomatal (Roma) 2013 Mar 20;4(1):152–155. DOI: 10.11138/ads/2013.4.1.152.
  6. Capar ID, Arslan H, et al. Effectiveness of ProTaper Universal retreatment instruments used with rotary or reciprocating adaptive motion in the removal of root canal filling material. Int J Endod 2015;48(1):79–83. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12279.
  7. Coelho BS, Amaral RO, et al. Performance of three single instrument systems in the preparation of long oval canals. Braz Dent J 2016;27(2):217–222. DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201302449.
  8. Pasqualini D, Scotti N, et al. Hand-operated and rotary ProTaper instruments: a comparison of working time and number of rotations in simulated root canals. J Endod 2008;34(3):314–317. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.12.017.
  9. Kumar SR, Gade V. Canal-centering ability. Med Sci 2014;10:246–248.
  10. Peters OA, Arias A, et al. A micro-computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with a novel instrument, TRU shape, in mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod 2015;41(9):1545–1550. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.06.007.
  11. Zhang Q, Chen H, et al. Root and root canal morphology in maxillary second molar with fused root from a native Chinese population. J Endod 2014;40(6):871–875. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.035.
  12. Fan B, Ye W, et al. Three-dimensional morphological analysis of C-shaped canals in mandibular first premolars in a Chinese population. Int J Endod 2012;45(11):1035–1041. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02070.x.
  13. Gambill JM, Alder M, et al. 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.
  14. Rhodes JS, Ford TR, et al. Micro computed tomography: a new tool for experimental endodontology. Int Endod J 1999;32(3):165–170. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00204.x.
  15. Stern S, Patel S, et al. Changes in centering and shaping ability using three nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (μCT). Int Endod J 2012;45(6):514–523. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.02004.x.
  16. de Carvalho GM, Sponchiado Junior EC, et al. Apical transportation, centering ability, and cleaning effectiveness of reciprocating single-file system associated with different glide path techniques. J Endod 2015;41(12):2045–2049. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.09.005.
  17. Saber SE, Nagy MM, et al. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of Wave One, Reciproc, and One Shape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2015;48(1):109–114. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12289.
  18. Moura-Netto C, Palo RM, et al. Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems. Braz Oral Res 2013;27(1):26–30. DOI: 10.1590/S1806-83242013000100005.
  19. Wu MK, Fan B, et al. 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.
  20. Zhao D, Shen Y, et al. Root canal preparation of mandibular molars with 3 nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2014;40(11):1860–1864. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.06.023.
  21. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, et al. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013;32(4):94, 96–99.
  22. 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(2):2053–2056. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.001.
  23. Cassimiro M, Romeiro K, et al. Albuquerque occurrence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation with R-phase, M-Wire and Gold Wire instruments: a micro-CT analysis. BMC Oral Health 2017;17(1):93. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0387-0.
  24. Saleh AM, Gilani PV, et al. Shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2015;41(4):548–552. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.019.
  25. Pagliosa A, Sousa-Neto MD, 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.
  26. Gergi R, Osta N, et al. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 2015;48(2):162–170. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12296.
  27. Hwang YH, Bae KS, et al. Shaping ability of the conventional nickel-titanium and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems: a comparative study using micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2014;40(8):1186–1189. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.032.
  28. Higuera O, Plotino G, et al. Cyclic fatigue resistance of 3 different nickel-titanium reciprocating instruments in artificial canals. J Endod 2015;41(6):913–915. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.01.023.
  29. Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, et al. The effect of endodontic procedures on apical crack initiation and propagation ex vivo. Int Endod J 2013;46(8):763–768. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12056.
  30. Wilcox LR, Roskelley C, et al. The relationship of root canal enlargement to finger-spreader induced vertical root fracture. J Endod 1997;23(8):533–534. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80316-0.
  31. Lertchirakarn V, Palamara JE, et al. Patterns of vertical root fracture: factors affecting stress distribution in the root canal. J Endod 2003;29(8):523–528. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200308000-00008.
  32. Borén DL, Jonasson P, et al. Long-term survival of endodontically treated teeth at a public dental specialist clinic. J Endod 2015 Feb;41(2):176–181. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.002.
  33. Capar ID, Ertas H, et al. Comparative study of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Endod 2014 Jun;40(6):852–856. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.010.
  34. Rodrigues RCV, Zandi H, et al. Influence of the apical preparation size and the irrigant type on bacterial reduction in root canal-treated teeth with apical periodontitis. J Endod 2017;43(7):1058–1063. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.02.004.
  35. Shivashankar MB, Niranjan NT, 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.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.