Nessrin A Taha1, Toshiko Ozawa, Harold H Messer. 1. Melbourne Dental School, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Department of Conservative Dentistry, Jordan University of Science and Technology, Irbid, Jordan. n.taha@just.edu.jo
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study compared three techniques for preparing oval-shaped root canals: Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET), hand instruments (Hedström files; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and rotary nickel-titanium (EndoWave; Morita, Osaka, Japan) instruments with regard to cleaning ability and final canal shape. METHODS: Three groups each of 13 extracted human mandibular premolars with oval-shaped canals were used. After canal preparation, teeth were sectioned at three levels (coronal, middle, and apical), photographed to assess cross-sectional canal shape, and processed for histologic evaluation of canal wall planing and the presence of debris. RESULTS: None of the techniques resulted in completely prepared and cleaned canals. No significant difference was found among the three techniques with regard to untouched surface, cross-sectional area, remaining fins, and canal shape at the three levels. Rotary NiTi instruments resulted in significantly less debris in the apical third compared with AET and hand instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: AET did not perform better than rotary NiTi or hand instruments in oval-shaped canals. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION: This study compared three techniques for preparing oval-shaped root canals: Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET), hand instruments (Hedström files; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and rotary nickel-titanium (EndoWave; Morita, Osaka, Japan) instruments with regard to cleaning ability and final canal shape. METHODS: Three groups each of 13 extracted human mandibular premolars with oval-shaped canals were used. After canal preparation, teeth were sectioned at three levels (coronal, middle, and apical), photographed to assess cross-sectional canal shape, and processed for histologic evaluation of canal wall planing and the presence of debris. RESULTS: None of the techniques resulted in completely prepared and cleaned canals. No significant difference was found among the three techniques with regard to untouched surface, cross-sectional area, remaining fins, and canal shape at the three levels. Rotary NiTi instruments resulted in significantly less debris in the apical third compared with AET and hand instrumentation. CONCLUSIONS: AET did not perform better than rotary NiTi or hand instruments in oval-shaped canals. Copyright (c) 2010 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: Maira de Souza Carvalho; Emílio Carlos Sponchiado; Angela Delfina Bitencourt Garrido; Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia; André Augusto Franco Marques Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2015 Jan-Mar