The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 11 ( November, 2015 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Root Canal Preparation using Various Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Study

Suhashini Ramanathan, Pradeep Solete

Citation Information : Ramanathan S, Solete P. Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Root Canal Preparation using Various Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (11):869-872.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1773

Published Online: 01-11-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the remaining dentin thickness of teeth after cleaning and shaping the root canal using three rotary instrumentation technique using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

Materials and methods

This in vitro study is being done with 30 premolar samples with 20’ curvature. The study is divided into three groups a CBCT was taken to measure the shortest distance from the root canal outline to the closest adjacent root surface was measured at each level from the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) (1,3, 5 and 7 mm) before and after root canal instrumentation. The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of different instruments used to prepare curved root canals on the remaining cervical dentin thickness and total amount of dentin removed from root canals during instrumentation by using multi-slice CBCT. The remaining dentin thickness is very much necessary for the success rate of root canal treatment. However, this study helps to prove that a conservative preparation with a sound remaining dentin thickness is much more advisable.

Result

It was observed that there was a significant difference at 1 and 3 mm (p < 0.05) and at 5 and 7 mm there was no significant difference (p > 0.05). Mtwo has removed less amount dentin when compared to ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next system at 1 and 3 mm.

Conclusion

Under the conditions of the study, we concluded that ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Next should be used judiciously, as it causes higher thinning of root dentin of the root when compared with Mtwo.

How to cite this article

Ramanathan S, Solete P. Cone-beam Computed Tomography Evaluation of Root Canal Preparation using Various Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(11):869-872.


PDF Share
  1. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30:559-567.
  2. Single file endodontics. Ind J Dent Adv 2012;4:822.
  3. A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. Aust Dent J 2002;47:12-20.
  4. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000;26:719-723.
  5. Shaping ability of ProFile.04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals—Part 2. Int Endod J 1997;30:8-15.
  6. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2001;34:452-457.
  7. A comparison of root canal preparations using NiTi hand, NiTi engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995;21:146-151.
  8. Comparitive study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005;38(10):743-752.
  9. Comparative evaluation of the preparation efficacies of HERO Shaper and Nitiflex root canal instruments in curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:636-642.
  10. Italy. The Mtwo NiTi rotary system for root canal preparation. Industry_grande Roots 65-70.
  11. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975;1:255-262.
  12. Histologic evaluation of different methods of enlarging the pulp canal space. J Endod 1976;2:304-311.
  13. A scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various endodontic instruments. J Endod 1975;1:324-333.
  14. Root canal fillings: an evaluation and method. J Am Dent Assoc 1956;53:567-576.
  15. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endod 1987;13:243-245.
  16. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of NiTi rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J 2001;34:476-484.
  17. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269-296.
  18. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997;23:503-507.
  19. A comparison of greater taper files, profiles, and stainless steel files to shapen curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;9:715-718.
  20. Current concepts for preparing the root canal system. Dentistry Today 2012. p. 76-83.
  21. Dental Clinics of North America 2010. p. 249-273.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.