Citation Information :
Jena D, Bansal N, Batra D, Arora A, Gupta R, Dudulwar DG. Assessment of Different File Systems for Working Time Based on Glide Path, Operating Kinetics, and the Fracture Resistance. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (1):69-72.
Aim: This study was done to assess the time to achieve the working distance based on the size of the glide path, operating kinetics, and the fracture resistance of different file systems. Materials and method: One hundred and eighty mandibular premolars were divided into two groups of 90 each. Group I was subjected to continuous 360° rotary motion and group II to adaptive motion. Twisted File (TF) and Endostar E3 file methods were practiced in groups. The time (seconds) to achieving desired working length was recorded. Failures were classified as torsional failure or flexural failure. Results: The time taken by glide path size 15 in group I was 5.90 ± 4.06 seconds and in group II was 6.12 ± 4.16 seconds. The time taken by glide path size 20 in group I was 5.86 ± 3.12 seconds and in group II was 4.22 ± 2.10 seconds, with 25 size the time taken in group I was 5.32 ± 2.48 seconds and in group II was 3.16 ± 3.14 seconds. The time taken by group I was less as compared to group II, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in time taken with different number files in both groups (p < 0.05). The mean time taken reaching the working length for continuous rotation was less as compared to TF adaptive motion; however, the difference was nonsignificant (p > 0.05). Conclusion: We recorded higher instrument separation and deformation with the TF method and adaptive gesture. The TF system showed additional time to achieve the working distance as compared to the Endostar E3 system. Clinical significance: The TF system showed higher instrument separation and deformation, and it requires additional time to achieve the working distance compared to the Endostar E3 system. Hence, the Endostar E3 system is effective in achieving required clinical results.
Çapar ID, Arslan H. A review of instrumentation kinematics of engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J 2016;49(2):119–135. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12432.
Jin SY, Lee W, Kang MK, Hur B, Kim HC. Single file reciprocating technique using conventional nickel-titanium rotary endodontic files. Scanning 2013;35(6):349–354. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21074.
Park SK, Kim YJ, Shon WJ, You SY, Moon YM, Kim HC, et al. Clinical efficiency and reusability of the reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments according to the root canal anatomy. Scanning 2014;36(2):246–251. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21096.
Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30(8):559–567. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000129039.59003.9d.
Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2008;34(2):198–200. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.10.009.
Bui TB, Mitchell JC, Baumgartner JC. Effect of electropolishing ProFile nickel-titanium rotary instruments on cyclic fatigue resistance, torsional resistance and cutting efficiency. J Endod 2008;34(2): 190–193. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.10.007.
Fayyad DM, Elhakim Elgendy AA. Cutting efficiency of twisted versus machined nickel-titanium endodontic files. J Endod 2011;37(8): 1143–1146. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.03.036.
Berutti E, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Chiandussi G, Pera F, Migliaretti G, et al. Use of nickel titanium rotary Path File to create the glide path: comparison with manual pre-flaring in simulated root canals. J Endod 2009;35(3):408–412. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.021.
Blum JY, Cohen A, Machtou P, Micallef JP. Analysis of forces developed during mechanical preparation of extracted teeth using Profile NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 1999;32(1):24–31.
Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008;41(4):339–344. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01351.x.
Gavini G, Santos MD, Caldeira CL, Machado ME, Freire LG, Iglecias EF, et al. Nickel–titanium instruments in endodontics: a concise review of the state of the art. Braz Oral Res 2018;32(Suppl 1):e67. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2018.vol32.0067.
Viana AC, Chaves Craveiro de Melo M, Guiomar de Azevedo Bahia M, Lopes Buono VT. Relationship between flexibility and physical, chemical, and geometric characteristics of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010 Oct;110(4):527–533. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2010.05.006.
Anderson ME, Price JW, Parashos P. Fracture resistance of electropolished rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 2007 Oct;33(10):1212–1216. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.007.
Ramyadharshini T, Sherwood IA, Vigneshwar VS, Prince PE, Vaanjay M. Influence of glide path size and operating kinetics on time to reach working length and fracture resistance of Twisted File adaptive and Endostar E3 nickel-titanium file systems. Restor Dent Endod 2020 Mar;45(2):e22. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2020.45.e22.
Plotino G, Ahmed HM, Grande NM, Cohen S, Bukiet F. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: a comprehensive review—part II: properties and effectiveness. J Endod 2015;41(12):1939–1950. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.08.018.
Kim HC, Hwang YJ, Jung DW, You SY, Kim HC, Lee W. Micro-computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy comparisons of two nickel-titanium rotary root canal instruments used with reciprocating motion. Scanning 2013;35(2):112–118. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21039.
Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickel-titanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011;37(10):1398–1401. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.030.
