E J Camargo1, M A H Duarte2, V A S Marques2, M V R Só3, J A Duque2, M P Alcalde2, R R Vivan2. 1. Division of Endodontics, College of Dentistry, University Center of Várzea Grande (UNIVAG), Várzea Grande, Matogrosso, Brazil. 2. Department of Operative Dentistry, Endodontics and Dental Materials, Bauru School of Dentistry, University of São Paulo, Bauru, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Department of Operative Dentistry, Rio Grande do Sul Federal University, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil.
Abstract
AIM: To evaluate the influence of three engine-driven NiTi file systems manufactured from different NiTi alloys for the preparation of second mesiobuccal (MB2) canals in extracted maxillary first molars using a micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) scanner. METHODOLOGY: Thirty maxillary molars with two canals in the mesiobuccal root were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 10): Reciproc [REC; size 25, .08 taper; VDW, Munich, Germany], ProDesign R [PDR; size 25, .06 taper; Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brazil] and Mtwo [MO; size 25, .06 taper; VDW, Munich, Germany]. Before and after root canal preparation of the MB2 canal, the teeth were scanned using a micro-CT to evaluate canal transportation, centring ability, dentine thickness and volume change. The working time to achieve working length was also evaluated. All parameters were compared statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test for multiple comparisons, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: There was no significant difference amongst the groups regarding canal transportation and centring ability (P > 0.05). However, the PDR size 25, .06 taper group had significantly lower canal volume and volume of dentine removal compared with a MO size 25, .06 taper and REC size 25, .08 taper (P < 0.05). A root perforation was detected in MO size 25, .06 taper and REC size 25, .08 taper groups, respectively. Regarding the working time, the PDR size 25, .06 taper required a significantly longer time to achieve working length than MO size 25, .06 taper and REC size 25, .08 taper (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All NiTi systems had similar canal transportation, centring ability and increase in apical volume after preparation of MB2 canals. However, the PDR size 25, .06 taper had less volume of dentine removal, absence of root canal perforation and required a longer time to accomplish the root canal preparation.
AIM: To evaluate the influence of three engine-driven NiTi file systems manufactured from different NiTi alloys for the preparation of second mesiobuccal (MB2) canals in extracted maxillary first molars using a micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) scanner. METHODOLOGY: Thirty maxillary molars with two canals in the mesiobuccal root were selected and randomly divided into three groups (n = 10): Reciproc [REC; size 25, .08 taper; VDW, Munich, Germany], ProDesign R [PDR; size 25, .06 taper; Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brazil] and Mtwo [MO; size 25, .06 taper; VDW, Munich, Germany]. Before and after root canal preparation of the MB2 canal, the teeth were scanned using a micro-CT to evaluate canal transportation, centring ability, dentine thickness and volume change. The working time to achieve working length was also evaluated. All parameters were compared statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn test for multiple comparisons, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: There was no significant difference amongst the groups regarding canal transportation and centring ability (P > 0.05). However, the PDR size 25, .06 taper group had significantly lower canal volume and volume of dentine removal compared with a MO size 25, .06 taper and REC size 25, .08 taper (P < 0.05). A root perforation was detected in MO size 25, .06 taper and REC size 25, .08 taper groups, respectively. Regarding the working time, the PDR size 25, .06 taper required a significantly longer time to achieve working length than MO size 25, .06 taper and REC size 25, .08 taper (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All NiTi systems had similar canal transportation, centring ability and increase in apical volume after preparation of MB2 canals. However, the PDR size 25, .06 taper had less volume of dentine removal, absence of root canal perforation and required a longer time to accomplish the root canal preparation.
Authors: Ronald Ordinola-Zapata; Jorge N R Martins; Hugo Plascencia; Marco A Versiani; Clovis M Bramante Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-05-07 Impact factor: 3.573