The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 21 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2020 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Microcrack Formation in Different Kinematics Using Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems: An In Vitro Study

Kaushik Haridas, Madhu Hariharan, Prabath Singh, Anju Varughese, Arjun B Ravi

Citation Information : Haridas K, Hariharan M, Singh P, Varughese A, Ravi AB. Comparative Evaluation of Microcrack Formation in Different Kinematics Using Rotary and Reciprocating File Systems: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (12):1389-1392.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2981

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 13-04-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2020; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: To compare root microcrack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next in rotation or forward reciprocation and Waveone gold in reverse reciprocating motion. Materials and methods: Buccal roots of 60 maxillary premolars with mature apices were selected, for different instrumentation techniques and divided into three groups. Coronal access was achieved and the canals were confirmed for apical patency. The canals were then instrumented using the following instrumentation techniques: ProTaper Next in rotation or forward reciprocation or Waveone gold in reverse reciprocation. The tooth was then subjected to sectioning using a diamond saw under water cooling and then was visualized under the stereomicroscope for dentinal microcrack. Results: The results showed that the maximum dentinal microcrack formed at apical 3 and 6 mm was in Waveone gold in reverse reciprocation followed by ProTaper Next in forward reciprocation and rotation. However, the p value was found to be not significant at 3 and 6 mm (p value—0.082 and 0.23). Conclusion: Nickle titanium rotary instruments tend to induce varied degrees of root dentinal damage during canal instrumentation. ProTaper Next files in rotation as well as forward reciprocation presented with minimal microcrack defects when compared with Waveone gold. Clinical significance: Root canal preparation, when performed by manual or engine-driven techniques, has shown to produce structural defects in the root dentin. One of the causes of failures in root canal treatment is because of fracture in the dentin that occurs due to these procedures. Though all the motion kinematics caused microcracks in this study, it was seen that rotational motion produced the least structural damage to the dentin.

  1. Flare-ups in endodontics: I. etiological factors. J Endod 1985;11(11):472–478. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(85)80220-X.
  2. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.05.003.
  3. 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.
  4. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, ProTaper next, ProTaper universal, and WaveOne instruments. J Endod 2015;41(2):261–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.019.
  5. Assessment of dentinal damage during canal preparation using reciprocating and rotary files. J Endod 2014;40(9):1443–1446. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.015.
  6. 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.
  7. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J 2014;47(3):211–221. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12137.
  8. Effects of 6 single-file systems on dentinal crack formation. J Endod 2017;43(3):456–461. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.038.
  9. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32(2):271–275. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1.
  10. 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.
  11. Diagnosis of vertical root fractures with optical coherence tomography. J Endod 2008;34(6):739–742. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.03.013.
  12. Dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation” a comparative evaluation with hand, rotary and reciprocating instrumentation. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(12):ZC70–ZC72. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/11437.5349.
  13. The effects of canal preparation and filling on the incidence of dentinal defects. Int Endod J 2009;42(3):208–213. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01502.x.
  14. 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.
  15. Evaluation of dentinal micro-cracks caused by the ProTaper universal, ProTaper next and Reciproc rotary file systems used in root canal preparation. Int Dent Res 2018;8(3):111–116. DOI: 10.5577/intdentres.2018.vol8.no3.3.
  16. Effect of instrumentation techniques and kinematics on apical extrusion of debris: An in vitro study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20(9):1067–1070. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2656.
  17. Influence of instruments used in root canal preparation on amount of apically extruded debris. Artif Organs 2016;40(8):774–777. DOI: 10.1111/aor.12675.
  18. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013;32(4):94., 96–9.
  19. Effect of ProTaper universal, PTN & hyflex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod 2014;40(9):1482–1484. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.026.
  20. Effects of reciproc, ProTaper next and WaveOne gold on root canal walls: a stereomicroscope analysis. Iran Endod J 2018;13(2):228–233.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.