O A Peters1, C I Peters, K Schönenberger, F Barbakow. 1. Endodontic Division, Department of Preventive and Restorative Dental Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, 94134, USA. opeters@itsa.ucsf.edu
Abstract
AIM: To investigate physical parameters for ProTaper nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments whilst preparing curved canals in maxillary molars in vitro. METHODOLOGY: A novel torque-testing platform was used to prepare root canals in 15 extracted human maxillary molars with ProTaper rotary instruments. Peak torque and force was registered along with numbers of rotations required to shape the canals. Canals were divided into 'wide' and 'constricted' groups depending on canal volumes assessed by micro computed tomography. Mean scores for each instrument type were calculated and statistically compared using anova and Scheffé posthoc tests. RESULTS: Mean torque varied between 0.8 +/- 0.5 and 2.2 +/- 1.4 N cm whilst mean force ranged from 4.6 +/- 2.6 to 6.2 +/- 2.7 N. Mean numbers of rotations totalled up to 21. All three variables registered were significantly correlated to preoperative canal volumes (P < 0.001) and differed significantly between 'wide' and 'constricted' canals (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst high forces were used in some cases, no ProTaper instrument fractured when a patent glide path was present. There were significant positive correlations between canal geometry and physical parameters during shaping.
AIM: To investigate physical parameters for ProTaper nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments whilst preparing curved canals in maxillary molars in vitro. METHODOLOGY: A novel torque-testing platform was used to prepare root canals in 15 extracted human maxillary molars with ProTaper rotary instruments. Peak torque and force was registered along with numbers of rotations required to shape the canals. Canals were divided into 'wide' and 'constricted' groups depending on canal volumes assessed by micro computed tomography. Mean scores for each instrument type were calculated and statistically compared using anova and Scheffé posthoc tests. RESULTS: Mean torque varied between 0.8 +/- 0.5 and 2.2 +/- 1.4 N cm whilst mean force ranged from 4.6 +/- 2.6 to 6.2 +/- 2.7 N. Mean numbers of rotations totalled up to 21. All three variables registered were significantly correlated to preoperative canal volumes (P < 0.001) and differed significantly between 'wide' and 'constricted' canals (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Whilst high forces were used in some cases, no ProTaper instrument fractured when a patent glide path was present. There were significant positive correlations between canal geometry and physical parameters during shaping.