AIM: To assess the effect of root canal preparation using ProTaper Gold, Profile Vortex, F360, Reciproc and ProTaper Universal instruments on dentinal crack formation. METHODOLOGY: Ninety mandibular central incisor teeth with mature apices and straight canals (<5° ) were selected and stored in distilled water. Fifteen teeth were left unprepared (control group) and the remaining 75 teeth were assigned to the five root canal shaping groups (n = 15): ProTaper Gold, ProFile Vortex, F360, Reciproc and ProTaper Universal. All the roots were sectioned perpendicular to the long axis at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex with a low-speed saw under water cooling. The slices were then viewed through a stereomicroscope at 25× magnification. The presence of dentinal cracks was determined by photographing all samples using a digital camera. RESULTS: All the experimental groups, except F360, produced significantly more cracks than the control group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed amongst the groups at the 6 and 9 mm levels (P > 0.05). The ProTaper Universal group produced significantly more cracks than the control, ProTaper Gold, ProFile Vortex, F360 and Reciproc groups at the apical section (3 mm) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All the systems that were tested produced dentinal cracks. There was no significant difference between the control and F360 groups in terms of dentinal crack formation.
AIM: To assess the effect of root canal preparation using ProTaper Gold, Profile Vortex, F360, Reciproc and ProTaper Universal instruments on dentinal crack formation. METHODOLOGY: Ninety mandibular central incisor teeth with mature apices and straight canals (<5° ) were selected and stored in distilled water. Fifteen teeth were left unprepared (control group) and the remaining 75 teeth were assigned to the five root canal shaping groups (n = 15): ProTaper Gold, ProFile Vortex, F360, Reciproc and ProTaper Universal. All the roots were sectioned perpendicular to the long axis at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex with a low-speed saw under water cooling. The slices were then viewed through a stereomicroscope at 25× magnification. The presence of dentinal cracks was determined by photographing all samples using a digital camera. RESULTS: All the experimental groups, except F360, produced significantly more cracks than the control group (P < 0.05). No significant difference was observed amongst the groups at the 6 and 9 mm levels (P > 0.05). The ProTaper Universal group produced significantly more cracks than the control, ProTaper Gold, ProFile Vortex, F360 and Reciproc groups at the apical section (3 mm) (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: All the systems that were tested produced dentinal cracks. There was no significant difference between the control and F360 groups in terms of dentinal crack formation.