The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 22 , ISSUE 3 ( March, 2021 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Root Microcracks Formation during Root Canal Instrumentation Using Reciprocating and Rotary Files

Rahhali Mohamed, Sakout Majid, Abdallaoui Faiza

Keywords : Continuous rotation, Dentinal cracks, Nickel–titanium rotary files, Reciprocating motion

Citation Information : Mohamed R, Majid S, Faiza A. Root Microcracks Formation during Root Canal Instrumentation Using Reciprocating and Rotary Files. J Contemp Dent Pract 2021; 22 (3):259-263.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3055

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 00-03-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim and objective: The aim of this study was to compare the formation of dentinal cracks with nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments working in continuous rotation and reciprocating motion. Materials and methods: One hundred sixty extracted human mandibular first molars were selected for the study. The mesial roots were resected and mounted in resin blocks with simulated periodontal ligaments. Those teeth were randomly assigned to five groups (n = 32 teeth/group). The first one was treated with K-files and served as control group, and the remaining 128 teeth were divided into 4 groups depending on the root canal preparation technique. Group 2 samples were prepared by sequential ProTaper Universal (PTU), group 3 samples with rotary ProTaper Universal (RPTU), group 4 achieved by the One Shape (OS), and group 5 with the WaveOne (WO) primary files. Roots were then horizontally sectioned at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, and the slices were then observed under a stereomicroscope at ×40 magnification to determine the presence of internal dentinal microcracks. The presence or absence of dentinal defaults was recorded and the statistical analysis was performed by Pearson Chi–square test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05. The study was made in the oral biology and biotechnology research laboratory of the faculty of medical dentistry of Rabat, Morocco. Results: No dentinal defect was seen with the stainless steel hand file (group 1). The manual PTU (group 2), the RPTU (group 3), the OS (group 4), and the WO (group 5) in reciprocating motion caused cracks in 15.6%, 12.4%, 21.9%, and 6.2% of samples, respectively. The highest percentage of dentinal defect was showed in group 4 but without significant difference with the other group (p > 0.05). Conclusions: Dentinal cracks are produced indifferently of motion kinematics. Within the limits of this study and the current literature, such incidence is less with instruments working in reciprocating motion compared with those working in continuous rotation. Manual and rotary NiTi sequential systems showed fewer microcracks than the single file system working by continuous rotation motion.


PDF Share
  1. Bier C, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, et al. The ability of different nickeltitanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod 2009;35:236–238. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.021.
  2. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.05.003.
  3. Hülsmann M, Peters O, Dummer P. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 2005;10:30–76. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x.
  4. Kim H, Lee M, Yum J, et al. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod 2010;36:1195–1199. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.010.
  5. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, et al. Smooth flexible versus active tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35:820–828. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00574.x.
  6. Hin E, Wu M, Wesselink P, et al. Effects of self-adjusting file, Mtwo, and ProTaper on the root canal wall. J Endod 2013;39:262–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.10.020.
  7. Liu R, Hou B, Wesselink P, 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.
  8. Burklein 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 wave one versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45:449–461. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x.
  9. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.045.
  10. Çiçek E, Koçak M, Saglam B, et al. Evaluation of microcrack formation in root canals after instrumentation with different NiTi rotary file systems: a scanning electron microscopy study. Scanning 2015;37(1):49–53. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21178.
  11. 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.
  12. Pop I, Manoharan A, Zanini F, et al. Synchrotron light-based μCT to analyse the presence of dentinal microcracks post-rotary and reciprocating NiTi instrumentation. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19(1):11–16. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-014-1206-5.
  13. Blum J, Machtou P, Esber S, et al. Analysis of forces developed during root canal preparation with the balanced force technique. Int Endod J 1997;30:386–396.
  14. Kansal R, Raiput A, Talwar S, et al. 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.
  15. Karataş E, Arsian H, Alsancak M, et al. Incidence of dentinal cracks after root canal preparation with twisted file adaptive instruments using different kinematics. J Endod 2015;41:1130–1133.
  16. Harandi A, Mirzaeerad S, Mehrabani M, et al. Incidence of dentinal crack after root canal reparation by ProTaper universal, neolix and safesider systems. Iran Endod J 2017;12(4):432–438. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v12i4.17597.
  17. Priya N, 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–ZC72. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2014/11437.5349.
  18. Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, et al. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickeltitanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod Topics 2011;37:1398–1401.
  19. Berutti E, Paolino D, Chiandussi G, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012;38:101–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.030.
  20. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino D, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: a comparative study. J Endod 2012;38:505–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.12.040.
  21. Bertan K, Burak S, Tugrul A. Evaluation of dentinal defects during root canal preparation using thermomechanically processed nickel-titanium files. Eur J Dent 2017;11:157–161. DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_254_16.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.