INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the root canal preparation in flat-oval canals treated with either rotary or self-adjusting file (SAF) by using micro-tomography analysis. METHODS: Forty mandibular incisors were scanned before and after root canal instrumentation with rotary instruments (n = 20) or SAF (n = 20). Changes in canal volume, surface area, and cross-sectional geometry were compared with preoperative values. Data were compared by independent sample t test and χ(2) test between groups and paired sample t test within the group (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Overall, area, perimeter, roundness, and major and minor diameters revealed no statistical difference between groups (P > .05). In the coronal third, percentage of prepared root canal walls and mean increases of volume and area were significantly higher with SAF (92.0%, 1.44 ± 0.49 mm(3), 0.40 ± 0.14 mm(2), respectively) than rotary instrumentation (62.0%, 0.81 ± 0.45 mm(3), 0.23 ± 0.15 mm(2), respectively) (P < .05). SAF removed dentin layer from all around the canal, whereas rotary instrumentation showed substantial untouched areas. CONCLUSIONS: In the coronal third, mean increases of area and volume of the canal as well as the percentage of prepared walls were significantly higher with SAF than with rotary instrumentation. By using SAF instruments, flat-oval canals were homogenously and circumferentially prepared. The size of the SAF preparation in the apical third of the canal was equivalent to those prepared with #40 rotary file with a 0.02 taper.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the root canal preparation in flat-oval canals treated with either rotary or self-adjusting file (SAF) by using micro-tomography analysis. METHODS: Forty mandibular incisors were scanned before and after root canal instrumentation with rotary instruments (n = 20) or SAF (n = 20). Changes in canal volume, surface area, and cross-sectional geometry were compared with preoperative values. Data were compared by independent sample t test and χ(2) test between groups and paired sample t test within the group (α = 0.05). RESULTS: Overall, area, perimeter, roundness, and major and minor diameters revealed no statistical difference between groups (P > .05). In the coronal third, percentage of prepared root canal walls and mean increases of volume and area were significantly higher with SAF (92.0%, 1.44 ± 0.49 mm(3), 0.40 ± 0.14 mm(2), respectively) than rotary instrumentation (62.0%, 0.81 ± 0.45 mm(3), 0.23 ± 0.15 mm(2), respectively) (P < .05). SAF removed dentin layer from all around the canal, whereas rotary instrumentation showed substantial untouched areas. CONCLUSIONS: In the coronal third, mean increases of area and volume of the canal as well as the percentage of prepared walls were significantly higher with SAF than with rotary instrumentation. By using SAF instruments, flat-oval canals were homogenously and circumferentially prepared. The size of the SAF preparation in the apical third of the canal was equivalent to those prepared with #40 rotary file with a 0.02 taper.
Authors: A C Fumes; M D Sousa-Neto; G B Leoni; M A Versiani; L A B da Silva; R A B da Silva; A Consolaro Journal: Eur Arch Paediatr Dent Date: 2014-02-22