INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to identify the influential factors responsible for clinical instrument separation of reused ProTaper Universal rotary instruments (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODS: Six thousand one hundred fifty-four root canals in 2,654 teeth were prepared using ProTaper Universal files in endodontic clinics. Separation incidence was determined based on the number of treated teeth or canals. Data were collected including the size of fractured instrument, the length and location of a broken segment within the root canal, and the curvature of canal. The chi-square test and independent samples t test were used to determine the statistical significance. RESULTS: The overall instrument separation incidences were 2.6% according to the number of teeth and 1.1% according to the canal number, respectively. Separation incidences according to the number of teeth or canals were significantly higher (P < .05) in molars than those in premolars or anterior teeth. Because of its largest diameter, F3 file presented the highest separation incidence according to the number of teeth (1.0%) or canals (0.4%); 47.5% instrument separation of mandibular molars and 61.5% instrument separation of maxillary molars happened in the mesiobuccal canals. Moreover, 91.4% fragments were located in the apical third of root canals, and 54.2% instrument separation occurred in severely curved canals. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in the mean fracture length between shaping (2.42 ± 0.73 mm) and finishing files (3.32 ± 0.73 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Separation incidence according to the canal number is more reliable than that according to the number of teeth because of the variable canal number in different teeth. The tooth type, rotary file size, canal location, and anatomy were correlated with the instrument separation of reused ProTaper Universal files.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to identify the influential factors responsible for clinical instrument separation of reused ProTaper Universal rotary instruments (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). METHODS: Six thousand one hundred fifty-four root canals in 2,654 teeth were prepared using ProTaper Universal files in endodontic clinics. Separation incidence was determined based on the number of treated teeth or canals. Data were collected including the size of fractured instrument, the length and location of a broken segment within the root canal, and the curvature of canal. The chi-square test and independent samples t test were used to determine the statistical significance. RESULTS: The overall instrument separation incidences were 2.6% according to the number of teeth and 1.1% according to the canal number, respectively. Separation incidences according to the number of teeth or canals were significantly higher (P < .05) in molars than those in premolars or anterior teeth. Because of its largest diameter, F3 file presented the highest separation incidence according to the number of teeth (1.0%) or canals (0.4%); 47.5% instrument separation of mandibular molars and 61.5% instrument separation of maxillary molars happened in the mesiobuccal canals. Moreover, 91.4% fragments were located in the apical third of root canals, and 54.2% instrument separation occurred in severely curved canals. There was a significant difference (P < .05) in the mean fracture length between shaping (2.42 ± 0.73 mm) and finishing files (3.32 ± 0.73 mm). CONCLUSIONS: Separation incidence according to the canal number is more reliable than that according to the number of teeth because of the variable canal number in different teeth. The tooth type, rotary file size, canal location, and anatomy were correlated with the instrument separation of reused ProTaper Universal files.