The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Volume  25 (2024)
Volume  24 (2023)
Volume  23 (2022)
Volume  22 (2021)
Volume  21 (2020)
Volume  20 (2019)
Volume  19 (2018)
Volume  18 (2017)
Volume  17 (2016)
Volume  16 (2015)
Volume  15 (2014)
Volume  14 (2013)
Volume  13 (2012)
Volume  12 (2011)
Volume  11 (2010)
Volume  10 (2009)
Volume  9 (2008)
Volume  8 (2007)
Volume  7 (2006)
Volume  6 (2005)
Volume  5 (2004)
Volume  4 (2003)
Volume  3 (2002)
Volume  2 (2001)
Volume  1 (1999)
Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2019 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Incidence of Dentinal Root Defects Caused by RECIPROC Blue, ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT and RECIPROC Nickel Titanium Rotary Instruments

Salsabeil W Hussien, Hikmet A Al-Gharrawi,

Keywords : Dentinal defects, Fisher's exact test, ProTaper Gold, ProTaper Next, RECIPROC, RECIPROC blue

Citation Information : Hussien SW, Al-Gharrawi, HA. Incidence of Dentinal Root Defects Caused by RECIPROC Blue, ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT and RECIPROC Nickel Titanium Rotary Instruments. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (3):291-297.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2512

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-04-2019

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


Abstract

Aim: This in vitro study was conducted to measure and compare the incidence of dentinal defects caused by (RECIPROC blue, ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT and RECIPROC) nickel titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments. Materials and methods: Seventy-five palatal roots of freshly extracted human maxillary first molars were used in this study. The total samples were randomly divided into five groups. Each group contained 15 samples (N = 15): group I: single file RECIPROC system, group II: ProTaper Next system, group III: ProTaper GOLD system, group IV: single file RECIPROC blue system and Group V: control group (No preparation). Root canal instrumentation were carried out according to manufacturer's instructions for each instrumentation system to # 40 apical size. Each root sample was sectioned horizontally at 2 mm, 4.5 mm and 7 mm, respectively from the apex. All root sections were observed under a stereomicroscope at 25X magnification. Results: The roots prepared by Reciproc showed the highest incidence of dentinal defects followed by ProTaper NEXT, ProTaper Gold then RECIPROC blue group which showed the lowest incidence of dentinal defects. The data obtained were analyzed statistically using Fisher's exact test at or equal to 5% significance levels. Fisher's exact test revealed that RECIPROC groups had a significant difference when compared with RECIPROC blue (p. 0.01) and with ProTaper Gold (p. 0.05) groups. While, other comparisons between each pair of groups revealed a non-significant difference between groups (p > 0.05). Regarding dentinal defects at different levels (apical, middle, coronal), Fisher's exact test showed that there was a non-significant difference in the incidence of dentinal defects when comparing among different levels in the same group or when comparing among different groups at the same level (p > 0.05). Conclusion: all experimental groups showed dentinal defects while no dentinal defects were observed in the negative control group. Clinical significance: the potential of root fracture is reduced using more flexible Ni Ti rotary instruments.

PDF Share
  1. Haapasalo M, Shen, Y. Evolution of nickel–titanium instruments: from past to future. Endod Topics 2013;29(1):3-17.
  2. Versiani MA, Souza E, De-Deus G. Critical appraisal of studies on dentinal radicular microcracks in endodontics: methodological issues, contemporary concepts, and future perspectives. Endod Topics 2015;33:87-156.
  3. Lertchirakarn V, Palamara J, Messer HH. Patterns of vertical fractures: factors affecting stress distribution in the root canal. J Endod 2003;29:523.
  4. Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen's pathways of the pulp, 11th ed. St. Louis, Mosby Elsevier 2016:213.
  5. Tsesis I, Rosen E, Tamse A, et al. Diagnosis of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth based on clinical and radiographic indices: a systematic review. J Endod 2010,36(9):1455-1458.
  6. Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Suda H. Crack initiation on the apical root surface caused by three different nickel-titanium rotary files at different working lengths. J Endod 2011;37:522-525.
  7. Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, et al. Phase transformation behavior and resistance to bending and cyclic fatigue of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal Instruments. J Endod 2015;41:1134-1138.
  8. Yared G. Canal preparation using one reciprocating instrument without prior hand filing: A new concept. International Dentistry – African edition 2012;2(2):78-87.
  9. De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Vieira VT, et al. Blue Thermomechanical Treatment Optimizes Fatigue Resistance and Flexibility of the Reciproc Files. J Endod 2017;43(3):462-466.
  10. Elnaghy AM. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J 2014;47(11):1034-1039.
  11. El Nasr HMA, El Kader KGA. Dentinal damage and fracture resistance of oval roots prepared with single-file systems using different kinematics. J Endod 2014;40(6):849-851.
  12. 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.
  13. Lam PP, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength of tooth roots following canal preparation by hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2005;31:529-532.
  14. Dane A, Çapar ID, Arslan H. Effect of different torque settings on crack formation in root dentin. J Endod 2016;42:304–306.
  15. Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Jindan P, Kobayashi C, Suda H. The effect of endodontic procedures on apical crack initiation and propagation ex vivo. Int Endod J 2013;46:763-768.
  16. Soares CJ, Pizi ECG, Fonseca RB, et al. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz oral res 2005;19 (1):11-16.
  17. Hin ES, Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Effects of self-adjusting file, Mtwo, and ProTaper on the root canal wall. J Endod. 2013;39:262-264.
  18. Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schafer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2013;39(4):501-504.
  19. Pedullà E, Genovesi F, Rapisarda S, et al. Effects of 6 Single-File Systems on Dentinal Crack Formation. J Endod 2017;43(3):456-461.
  20. Karataþ E, Gündüz HA, Kýrýcý DÖ, et al. Incidence of dentinal cracks after root canal preparation with ProTaper Gold, Profile Vortex, F360, Reciproc and ProTaper Universal instruments. Int Endod J 2015;12541.
  21. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, et al. Effects of ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod 2014:40:1482-1484.
  22. Yoldas O, Yilmaz S, Atakan G. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod 2012;38:232-235.
  23. Yared G. Reciproc blue: the new generation of reciprocation. Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia 2017;31,96-101.
  24. Bayram HM, Bayram E, Ocak M, et al. Effect of ProTaper Gold, Self-Adjusting File, and XP-endo Shaper Instruments on Dentinal Microcrack Formation: A Micro-Computed Tomographic Study. J Endod 2017;43(7):1166-1169.
  25. Shori DD, Shenoi PR, Baig AR, et al. Stereomicroscopic evaluation of dentinal defects induced by new rotary system: “ProTaper NEXT.” J Conserv Dent 2015;18(3):210-213.
  26. Ashraf F, Shankarappa P, Misra A, et al. A Stereomicroscopic Evaluation of Dentinal Cracks at Different Instrumentation Lengths by Using Different Rotary Files (ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM): An Ex Vivo Study. Scientifica 2016;837-865.
  27. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013;32(4):96-99.
  28. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, et al. Shapingability and cleaningeffectiveness 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.
  29. Li SH, Lu Y, Song D, et al. Occurrence of dentinal microcracks in severely curved root canals with ProTaper Universal, WaveOne, and ProTaper ext file systems. J Endod 2015;41:1875-1879.
  30. Logani A, Shah N. Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An ex vivocomparative study. IJDR 2008;19(3):182-185.
  31. Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, 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.
  32. Adl A, Sedigh-Shams M, Majd M. The effect of using RC Prep during root canal preparation on the incidence of dentinal defects. J Endod 2015;41(3):376-379.
  33. 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.
  34. Bernardes RA, Rocha EA, Duarte MAH, et al. Root canal area increase promoted by the EndoSequence and ProTaper systems: comparison by computed tomography. J Endod 2010;36(7):1179-1182.
  35. Plotino G, Grande NM, Testarelli L, et al. Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2012;45:614-618.
  36. Medha A, Patil S, Hoshing U, et al. Evaluation of Forces Generated on Three Different Rotary File Systems in Apical Third of Root Canal using Finite Element Analysis. JCDR 2014;8(1):243-246.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.