M L Zuolo1, A A Zaia1, F G Belladonna2, E J N L Silva3, E M Souza4, M A Versiani5, R T Lopes6, G De-Deus2. 1. Endodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Piracicaba Dental School, State University of Campinas, Piracicaba, São Paulo, Brazil. 2. Department of Endodontics, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University, Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Department of Dentistry II, Federal University of Maranhão, São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil. 5. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 6. Nuclear Engineering Program, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
AIM: To compare the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval-shaped canals using micro-computed tomographic analysis. METHODOLOGY: Forty anatomically matched mandibular incisors were scanned and assigned to four groups (n = 10), according to the canal preparation protocol: BioRace, Reciproc, Self-Adjusting File (SAF) and TRUShape systems. After canal instrumentation, the specimens were rescanned, and the registered pre- and postoperative datasets were examined to evaluate the percentages of accumulated hard-tissue debris, untouched canal walls and dentine removed. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the variables in the groups (α = 5%). RESULTS: The preparation techniques did not affect the percentage of accumulated hard-tissue debris (P = 0.126). The percentage of untouched canal areas was significantly higher for BioRace (32.38%)compared to Reciproc (18.95%) and SAF (16.08%) systems (P < 0.05). Reciproc removed significantly more dentine (4.18%) than BioRace (2.21%) and SAF (2.56%) (P < 0.05). The TRUShape system had intermediate results for both untouched canal walls (19.20%) and dentine removed (3.77%), with no significant difference compared to BioRace, Reciproc and SAF systems. CONCLUSIONS: The preparation techniques resulted in the same level of accumulated hard-tissue debris. Compared to the other tested systems, BioRace was associated with more untouched canal walls and Reciproc produced the greatest amount of removed dentine. Although it touched more of the root canal walls, the SAF system removed less dentine, whereas TRUShape had intermediate results for these same parameters. None of the systems tested were able to provide optimal shaping ability in oval-shaped canals.
AIM: To compare the shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in oval-shaped canals using micro-computed tomographic analysis. METHODOLOGY: Forty anatomically matched mandibular incisors were scanned and assigned to four groups (n = 10), according to the canal preparation protocol: BioRace, Reciproc, Self-Adjusting File (SAF) and TRUShape systems. After canal instrumentation, the specimens were rescanned, and the registered pre- and postoperative datasets were examined to evaluate the percentages of accumulated hard-tissue debris, untouched canal walls and dentine removed. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-tests with Bonferroni correction were used to compare the variables in the groups (α = 5%). RESULTS: The preparation techniques did not affect the percentage of accumulated hard-tissue debris (P = 0.126). The percentage of untouched canal areas was significantly higher for BioRace (32.38%)compared to Reciproc (18.95%) and SAF (16.08%) systems (P < 0.05). Reciproc removed significantly more dentine (4.18%) than BioRace (2.21%) and SAF (2.56%) (P < 0.05). The TRUShape system had intermediate results for both untouched canal walls (19.20%) and dentine removed (3.77%), with no significant difference compared to BioRace, Reciproc and SAF systems. CONCLUSIONS: The preparation techniques resulted in the same level of accumulated hard-tissue debris. Compared to the other tested systems, BioRace was associated with more untouched canal walls and Reciproc produced the greatest amount of removed dentine. Although it touched more of the root canal walls, the SAF system removed less dentine, whereas TRUShape had intermediate results for these same parameters. None of the systems tested were able to provide optimal shaping ability in oval-shaped canals.