Ismail Davut Capar1, Hakan Arslan2, Merve Akcay3, Banu Uysal4. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey. Electronic address: capardt@hotmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Atatürk University, Erzurum, Turkey. 3. Department of Pedodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey. 4. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, İzmir Katip Çelebi University, İzmir, Turkey.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence of cracks in root dentin after root canal preparation with ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), and ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer) rotary instruments. METHODS: One-hundred mandibular premolars were selected. Twenty-five teeth were left unprepared and served as a negative control; another 25 teeth were instrumented with the ProTaper Universal system up to size F4 as a positive control, and the remaining 50 teeth were shaped with the following experimental groups with an apical size 40 file: ProTaper Next X4 and HyFlex 40/0.4. After root canal preparation, all of the roots were sectioned perpendicular to the long axis at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm from the apex, and the sections were then observed under a stereomicroscope. The absence/presence of cracks was recorded, and the data were analyzed with a chi-square test. The significance level was set at P = .05. RESULTS: No cracks were observed in the negative control group. Vertical root fractures were not observed in any of the groups. The ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments caused fewer cracks (28%) than the ProTaper Universal instrument (56%) (P < .05). However, there were no significant differences in crack formation between the ProTaper Next and HyFlex groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, all of the instrumentation systems used in this study created cracks in the root dentin. The ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments tended to cause fewer dentinal cracks compared with the ProTaper Universal instrument.
INTRODUCTION: The aim of the present study was to investigate the incidence of cracks in root dentin after root canal preparation with ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), and ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer) rotary instruments. METHODS: One-hundred mandibular premolars were selected. Twenty-five teeth were left unprepared and served as a negative control; another 25 teeth were instrumented with the ProTaper Universal system up to size F4 as a positive control, and the remaining 50 teeth were shaped with the following experimental groups with an apical size 40 file: ProTaper Next X4 and HyFlex 40/0.4. After root canal preparation, all of the roots were sectioned perpendicular to the long axis at 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm from the apex, and the sections were then observed under a stereomicroscope. The absence/presence of cracks was recorded, and the data were analyzed with a chi-square test. The significance level was set at P = .05. RESULTS: No cracks were observed in the negative control group. Vertical root fractures were not observed in any of the groups. The ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments caused fewer cracks (28%) than the ProTaper Universal instrument (56%) (P < .05). However, there were no significant differences in crack formation between the ProTaper Next and HyFlex groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this in vitro study, all of the instrumentation systems used in this study created cracks in the root dentin. The ProTaper Next and HyFlex instruments tended to cause fewer dentinal cracks compared with the ProTaper Universal instrument.
Authors: N Tulasi Priya; Veeramachaneni Chandrasekhar; S Anita; Muralidhar Tummala; T B Phanindhar Raj; Vijetha Badami; Pradeep Kumar; E Soujanya Journal: J Clin Diagn Res Date: 2014-12-05