Evaluation of Microcracks formed During Root Canal Preparation by Different File Systems Using Micro-computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study
Juhi Deopujari, Henna Singh, Ipsita Pathak, Ritwik Shyamal, Shincy Mary Antony, Shreya Singh
Endomotor, Microcracks, Micro-computed tomography, NiTi Files, OneShape Rotary
Citation Information :
Deopujari J, Singh H, Pathak I, Shyamal R, Antony SM, Singh S. Evaluation of Microcracks formed During Root Canal Preparation by Different File Systems Using Micro-computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (1):74-78.
Aim: The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the incidence of dentinal microcracks after instrumentation with various types of nickel-titanium (NiTi) files in rotary and reciprocating motion.
Materials and methods: Fifty human extracted mandibular molars were taken and divided into five groups (n = ten teeth per group). Group I included ProTaper Gold, group II included OneShape, group III included WaveOne Gold, group IV included Reciproc, and group V included hand K files. The teeth were desectioned at the cemento-enamel junction (CEJ) and dentinal microcracks were observed under Micro-computed tomography. Postoperative Micro-computed tomography analysis of the samples was conducted to inspect cracks in the images obtained before and after preparation.
Result: Results confirmed that there was a statistically significant difference between the study groups (p <0.05). The highest percentage of microcracks was seen in ProTaper Gold followed by OneShape. WaveOne Gold and Reciproc showed closely similar percentage of microcracks followed by hand K files that showed the least.
Conclusion: Both rotary file systems showed higher number of microcracks than reciprocating file systems. Hand K files showed least microcracks formation among all studied groups.
Clinical significance: Among all the tested methods and systems, hand K files demonstrated least incidence of dentinal microcracks. However, these hand K files systems are not advanced and have certain practical limitations. Reciprocating systems usually exhibits clinically acceptable microcracks therefore they may be judiciously utilized. Rotary file systems showed excellent biomechanical outcomes with redundant microcrack formation. Hence, precise selection of a particular system must be solely dependent upon the clinical decision making and circumstantial requirements.
Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, et al. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45(5):449–461. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x.
Yoldas O, Yilmaz S, Atakan G, et al. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod 2012;38(2):232–235. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.011.
Monga P, Bajaj N, Mahajan P, et al. Comparison of incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation with continuous rotation and reciprocating instrumentation. Singapore Dent J 2015;36:29–33. DOI: 10.1016/j.sdj.2015.09.003.
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): ZC70-2. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/11437.5349.
Ustun Y, Aslan T, Sagsen B, et al. The effects of different nickel titanium instruments on dentinal microcrack formations during root canal preparation. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(1):41–46. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.149638.
Ravi AB, Singh PVP, Sreeram SR, et al. Comparison of root microcrack formation after root canal preparation using two continuous rotational file systems and two reciprocating systems: an in vitro study. IOSR J Dent Med Sci 2015;14(11):15–18. DOI: 10.9790/0853-141161518.
Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schäfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2013;39(4):501–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.045.
De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, Marins JR, et al. On the causality between dentinal defects and root canal preparation: a micro-CT assessment. Braz Dent J 2016;27(6):664–669. DOI: 10.1590/0103- 6440201601002.
Jamleh A, Komabayashi T, Ebihara A, et al. Root surface strain during canal shaping and its influence on apical microcrack development: a preliminary investigation. Int Endod J 2015;48(12):1103–1111. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12406.
Bier CA, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, et al. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod 2009;35(2):236–238. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.021.
Nishad SV, Shivamurthy GB. Comparative analysis of apical root crack propagation after root canal preparation at different instrumentation lengths using ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next and ProTaper Gold Rotary files: An in Vitro study. J Endod 2018;9(Suppl 1):S34–S38. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_830_17.
Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, et al. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013;39(8):1054–1056. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.013.
Abou El Nasr HM, Abd El Kader KG. Dentinal damage and fracture resistance of oval roots prepared with single-file systems using different kinematics. J Endod 2014;40(6):849–851. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.09.020.
Saberi EA, Mohammadi A, Ebrahimipour S, et al. In-vitro comparison of NiTi Tee, RaCe and ProTaper instruments in dentinal crack formation. J Dent Mater Tech 2017;6(4):152–158.
Ashwin Kumar V, Krithika Datta J, Surendran S, et al. Effect of reciprocating file motion on microcrack formation in root canals: an SEM study. Int Endod J 2014;47(7):622–627. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12197.
Gutmann JL, Gao Y. Alteration in the inherent metallic and surface properties of nickel-titanium root canal instruments to enhance performance, durability and safety: a focused review. Int Endod J 2012;45(2):113–128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01957.x.
Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, et al. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod 2010;36(7):1195–1199. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.010.
De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Marins J, et al. Lack of causal relationship between dentinal microcracks and root canal preparation with reciprocation systems. J Endod 2014;40(9):1447–1450. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.019.
Shashidhar C, Rao D, Naik S, et al. Rotary versus reciprocating file system: An in vitro stereomicroscopic evaluation of radicular dentinal cracks formation at various root levels. Int J Sci Res 2019;8(9):71–74. DOI: 10.36106/IJSR.
Saber SE, Schäfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after preparation of severely curved root canals using the Reciproc single file system with and without prior creation of a glide path. Int Endod J 2016;49(11):1057–1064. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12555.
Cassimiro M, Romeiro K, Gominho L, et al. 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(93): 1–6. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-017-0387-0.
Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, et al. Effect of three nickel titanium instrument system on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2014;48(2):116–122. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12296.
Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, et al. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod 2010;36(5):904–907. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.038.
Miguéns-Vila R, Martín-Biedma B, De-Deus G, et al. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of dentinal microcracks after preparation of curved root canals with ProTaper Gold, WaveOne Gold, and ProTaper Next instruments. J Endod 2021;47(2):309–314. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.014.
Amitha M, Adarsha MS, Meena N, et al. Comparative assessment of formation of dentin microcracks after root canal preparation using hand, rotary, and reciprocating instrumentation: an in vitro study. Int J Oral Care Res 2018;6(2):S19–S23. DOI: 10.4103/INJO.INJO_05_2018.