Camila Galletti Espir1, Camila Almeida Nascimento-Mendes1, Juliane Maria Guerreiro-Tanomaru1, Bruno Cavalini Cavenago2, Marco Antonio Hungaro Duarte3, Mário Tanomaru-Filho4. 1. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, SP, Brazil. 2. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Federal University of Paraná, Curitiba, Paraná, Brazil. 3. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, School of Dentistry of Bauru, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 4. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, UNESP - Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, SP, Brazil. tanomaru@uol.com.br.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the shaping ability and cleaning after oval root canal preparation using one or more instruments in reciprocating or rotary motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oval-shaped mandibular incisors were selected, based on the radiographic diameter (2 ≤ diameter ratio ≤ 4), and assigned according to root canal preparation (n = 18): single-file (Reciproc R40); two reciprocating files (Unicone size 20 and 40, .06 taper) or Mtwo rotary files until a size 40, .06 taper instrument. Root canal preparations were performed using an open root canal model. Scanning was performed before and after preparation using SkyScan 1176 with a voxel size of 17.42 μm. Volume, percentage of debris, and percentage of uninstrumented surface were analyzed in the entire root canal and in each root canal third. Data were compared using ANOVA and Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 5%). RESULTS: The initial volume were similar among the groups (p > .05). Unicone preparation was associated with higher debris, increase in root canal volume and uninstrumented surface in entire root canal and in the middle third (P < .05). Mtwo was associated with lower uninstrumented surface in the entire root canal and in the cervical third. The apical third were similar for the three preparations. CONCLUSIONS: Unicone system using two instruments in reciprocating motion resulted in higher increase in volume. However, less remaining debris was observed when Reciproc single-file and Mtwo rotary systems were used. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A preparation that volumetrically increases the root canal is not necessarily associated with better cleaning. Shaping and hard-tissue debris removal depends on root canal anatomy, kinematics, number of instruments, and instrument design.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the shaping ability and cleaning after oval root canal preparation using one or more instruments in reciprocating or rotary motion. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Oval-shaped mandibular incisors were selected, based on the radiographic diameter (2 ≤ diameter ratio ≤ 4), and assigned according to root canal preparation (n = 18): single-file (Reciproc R40); two reciprocating files (Unicone size 20 and 40, .06 taper) or Mtwo rotary files until a size 40, .06 taper instrument. Root canal preparations were performed using an open root canal model. Scanning was performed before and after preparation using SkyScan 1176 with a voxel size of 17.42 μm. Volume, percentage of debris, and percentage of uninstrumented surface were analyzed in the entire root canal and in each root canal third. Data were compared using ANOVA and Tukey or Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests (α = 5%). RESULTS: The initial volume were similar among the groups (p > .05). Unicone preparation was associated with higher debris, increase in root canal volume and uninstrumented surface in entire root canal and in the middle third (P < .05). Mtwo was associated with lower uninstrumented surface in the entire root canal and in the cervical third. The apical third were similar for the three preparations. CONCLUSIONS:Unicone system using two instruments in reciprocating motion resulted in higher increase in volume. However, less remaining debris was observed when Reciproc single-file and Mtwo rotary systems were used. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A preparation that volumetrically increases the root canal is not necessarily associated with better cleaning. Shaping and hard-tissue debris removal depends on root canal anatomy, kinematics, number of instruments, and instrument design.
Authors: Ana Grasiela da Silva Limoeiro; Antônio Henrique Braitt Dos Santos; Alexandre Sigrist De Martin; Augusto Shoji Kato; Carlos Eduardo Fontana; Giulio Gavini; Laila Gonzales Freire; Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Bueno Journal: J Endod Date: 2016-01-08 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: C G Espir; C A Nascimento-Mendes; J M Guerreiro-Tanomaru; L G Freire; G Gavini; M Tanomaru-Filho Journal: Int Endod J Date: 2017-04-25 Impact factor: 5.264
Authors: Flávio R F Alves; Bernardo M Almeida; Mônica A S Neves; Jaime O Moreno; Isabela N Rôças; José F Siqueira Journal: J Endod Date: 2011-02-25 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Andrea F Campello; Marília F Marceliano-Alves; José F Siqueira; Simone C Fonseca; Ricardo T Lopes; Flávio R F Alves Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 3.573