T Rödig1, M Hülsmann, M Mühge, F Schäfers. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Preventive Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Göttingen, Robert-Koch-Street 40, 37075 Göttingen, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the preparation of oval distal root canals in mandibular molars using three different nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments: Lightspeed (Lightspeed Inc., San Antonio, TX, USA). ProFile .04 (Maillefer Ballaigues. Switzerland) and Quantec SC (Tycom, Irvine, CA, USA). METHODOLOGY: Three groups of 20 extracted mandibular molars with oval distal root canals were embedded in a muffle system as described by Bramante et al. (1987) and modified by Hülsmann et al. (1999). Preparation of the root canals was performed with particular emphasis on the buccal and lingual extensions of the oval shape. The following parameters were evaluated: comparison of pre- and postoperative photographs with regard to the buccal and lingual extensions of the preparation, safety issues (file fractures, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length), cleaning ability (SEM investigated using a 5-score system for remaining debris and smear layer) and working time. RESULTS: Superimposition of pre- and postoperative cross-sections in the majority of specimens revealed uninstrumented or incompletely instrumented buccal or lingual extensions (Lightspeed and Quantec SC, 56.7%; ProFile .04, 55%) For debris removal, Quantec SC achieved the best results (54.2% scores 1 and 2), followed by ProFile .04 (52.5%) and Lightspeed (46.7%). Preparation resulted in substantial smear layer covering the canal walls for every system (ProFile .04, 38.3%; Quantec SC, 36.6%; Lightspeed, 28.3%). Differences between the three systems were not significant for any of the parameters investigated. Preparation with Lightspeed resulted in two fractured instruments; with Quantec SC. two apical blockages occurred. With ProFile .04, no complications were noticed. Mean working time was shorter for ProFile .04 (261.2 s) than for Quantec SC (272.4 s) and Lightspeed (338.9 s); the differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The flexibility of the NiTi instruments investigated in this study did not allow controlled preparation of the buccal and lingual extensions of oval root canals. The instruments frequently produced a circular bulge in the canal whilst the buccal and lingual extensions remained unprepared, leaving smear layer and debris.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the preparation of oval distal root canals in mandibular molars using three different nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments: Lightspeed (Lightspeed Inc., San Antonio, TX, USA). ProFile .04 (Maillefer Ballaigues. Switzerland) and Quantec SC (Tycom, Irvine, CA, USA). METHODOLOGY: Three groups of 20 extracted mandibular molars with oval distal root canals were embedded in a muffle system as described by Bramante et al. (1987) and modified by Hülsmann et al. (1999). Preparation of the root canals was performed with particular emphasis on the buccal and lingual extensions of the oval shape. The following parameters were evaluated: comparison of pre- and postoperative photographs with regard to the buccal and lingual extensions of the preparation, safety issues (file fractures, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length), cleaning ability (SEM investigated using a 5-score system for remaining debris and smear layer) and working time. RESULTS: Superimposition of pre- and postoperative cross-sections in the majority of specimens revealed uninstrumented or incompletely instrumented buccal or lingual extensions (Lightspeed and Quantec SC, 56.7%; ProFile .04, 55%) For debris removal, Quantec SC achieved the best results (54.2% scores 1 and 2), followed by ProFile .04 (52.5%) and Lightspeed (46.7%). Preparation resulted in substantial smear layer covering the canal walls for every system (ProFile .04, 38.3%; Quantec SC, 36.6%; Lightspeed, 28.3%). Differences between the three systems were not significant for any of the parameters investigated. Preparation with Lightspeed resulted in two fractured instruments; with Quantec SC. two apical blockages occurred. With ProFile .04, no complications were noticed. Mean working time was shorter for ProFile .04 (261.2 s) than for Quantec SC (272.4 s) and Lightspeed (338.9 s); the differences were not significant. CONCLUSIONS: The flexibility of the NiTi instruments investigated in this study did not allow controlled preparation of the buccal and lingual extensions of oval root canals. The instruments frequently produced a circular bulge in the canal whilst the buccal and lingual extensions remained unprepared, leaving smear layer and debris.