T Rödig1, M Hülsmann, C Kahlmeier. 1. Department of Operative Dentistry, Preventive Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Göttingen, Germany.
Abstract
AIM: To compare root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and GT Rotary nickel-titanium instruments (both Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODOLOGY:Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvaturesbetween 20 and 40 degrees were randomly divided into two groups and embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 using ProFile .04 or GT rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of root canal curvature, postoperative root canal cross-section, cleaning ability, safety issues and working time. RESULTS: Both NiTi systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was <1 degrees . The majority of the root canals prepared with ProFile .04 (80.8%) and GT (84.0%) postoperatively showed a round or oval cross-section. For debris, ProFile .04 and GT rotary achieved 67.1% and 71.6% scores of 1 and 2, respectively. Concerning the coronal region statistical analysis showed a better result for GT than for ProFile .04. For the middle and apical thirds of the root canals, results did not differ significantly. None of the two systems completely removed smear layer. Ten procedural incidents occurred with ProFile .04 compared with five with GT. Mean working time was shorter for ProFile .04 (131.8 s) than for GT (143.7 s); the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Smear layer removal was not satisfactory with either systems.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To compare root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and GT Rotary nickel-titanium instruments (both Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODOLOGY: Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures between 20 and 40 degrees were randomly divided into two groups and embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 using ProFile .04 or GT rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of root canal curvature, postoperative root canal cross-section, cleaning ability, safety issues and working time. RESULTS: Both NiTi systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was <1 degrees . The majority of the root canals prepared with ProFile .04 (80.8%) and GT (84.0%) postoperatively showed a round or oval cross-section. For debris, ProFile .04 and GT rotary achieved 67.1% and 71.6% scores of 1 and 2, respectively. Concerning the coronal region statistical analysis showed a better result for GT than for ProFile .04. For the middle and apical thirds of the root canals, results did not differ significantly. None of the two systems completely removed smear layer. Ten procedural incidents occurred with ProFile .04 compared with five with GT. Mean working time was shorter for ProFile .04 (131.8 s) than for GT (143.7 s); the difference was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Smear layer removal was not satisfactory with either systems.