Annil Dhingra1, Nidhi Ruhal2, Anjali Miglani3. 1. Professor and Head of Department, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences and Research , Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India . 2. Post Graduate Student, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences and Research , Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India . 3. Reader, Department of Conservative and Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences and Research , Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India .
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Successful endodontic therapy depends on many factor, one of the most important step in any root canal treatment is root canal preparation. In addition, respecting the original shape of the canal is of the same importance; otherwise, canal aberrations such as transportation will be created. AIM: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate Reciprocating WaveOne ,Reciproc and Rotary Oneshape Single File Instrumentation System On Cervical Dentin Thickness, Cross Sectional Area and Canal Transportation on First Mandibular Molar Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty Mandibular First Molars extracted due to periodontal reason was collected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial. Teeth were prepared using one rotary and two reciprocating single file system. Teeth were divided into 3 groups 20 teeth in each group. Pre instrumentation and Post instrumentation scans was done and evaluated for three parameters Canal Transportation, Cervical Dentinal Thickness, Cross-sectional Area. Results were analysed statistically using ANOVA, Post-Hoc Tukey analysis. RESULTS: The change in cross-sectional area after filing showed significant difference at 0mm, 1mm, 2mm and 7mm (p<0.001, p =0.006, 0.004 & <0.001 respectively). There was significant difference between wave one and oneshape; oneshape and reciproc at 0mm, 1mm, 2mm & 7mm (p-values for waveone and Oneshape <0.001, 0.022, 0.011 & <0.001 resp. and for oneshape and reciproc < 0.001, p= 0.011, p=0.008 & <0.001). On assessing the transportation of the three file system over a distance of 7 mm (starting from 0mm and then evaluation at 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 5mm and 7mm), the results showed a significant difference among the file systems at various lengths (p= 0.014, 0.046, 0.004, 0.028, 0.005 & 0.029 respectively). Mean value of cervical dentinal removal is maximum at all the levels for oneshape and minimum for waveone showing the better quality of waveone and reciproc over oneshape file system. Significant difference was found at 9mm, 11mm and 12mm between all the three file systems (p<0.001,< 0.001, <0.001). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that reciprocating motion is better than rotary motion in all the three parameters Canal Transportation, Cross-sectional Area, Cervical Dentinal Thickness.
BACKGROUND: Successful endodontic therapy depends on many factor, one of the most important step in any root canal treatment is root canal preparation. In addition, respecting the original shape of the canal is of the same importance; otherwise, canal aberrations such as transportation will be created. AIM: The purpose of this study is to compare and evaluate Reciprocating WaveOne ,Reciproc and Rotary Oneshape Single File Instrumentation System On Cervical Dentin Thickness, Cross Sectional Area and Canal Transportation on First Mandibular Molar Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty Mandibular First Molars extracted due to periodontal reason was collected from the Department of Oral and Maxillofacial. Teeth were prepared using one rotary and two reciprocating single file system. Teeth were divided into 3 groups 20 teeth in each group. Pre instrumentation and Post instrumentation scans was done and evaluated for three parameters Canal Transportation, Cervical Dentinal Thickness, Cross-sectional Area. Results were analysed statistically using ANOVA, Post-Hoc Tukey analysis. RESULTS: The change in cross-sectional area after filing showed significant difference at 0mm, 1mm, 2mm and 7mm (p<0.001, p =0.006, 0.004 & <0.001 respectively). There was significant difference between wave one and oneshape; oneshape and reciproc at 0mm, 1mm, 2mm & 7mm (p-values for waveone and Oneshape <0.001, 0.022, 0.011 & <0.001 resp. and for oneshape and reciproc < 0.001, p= 0.011, p=0.008 & <0.001). On assessing the transportation of the three file system over a distance of 7 mm (starting from 0mm and then evaluation at 1mm, 2mm, 3mm, 5mm and 7mm), the results showed a significant difference among the file systems at various lengths (p= 0.014, 0.046, 0.004, 0.028, 0.005 & 0.029 respectively). Mean value of cervical dentinal removal is maximum at all the levels for oneshape and minimum for waveone showing the better quality of waveone and reciproc over oneshape file system. Significant difference was found at 9mm, 11mm and 12mm between all the three file systems (p<0.001,< 0.001, <0.001). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that reciprocating motion is better than rotary motion in all the three parameters Canal Transportation, Cross-sectional Area, Cervical Dentinal Thickness.
Entities:
Keywords:
Canal transportation; Cervical dentinal thickness; Cross-sectional area; File system
Authors: Victor Feliz Pedrinha; Juliana Melo da Silva Brandão; Oscar Faciola Pessoa; Patrícia de Almeida Rodrigues Journal: Open Dent J Date: 2018-02-28