| Literature DB >> 35956222 |
Elio Berutti1, Edoardo Moccia1, Stefano Lavino1, Stefania Multari1, Giorgia Carpegna1, Nicola Scotti1, Damiano Pasqualini1, Mario Alovisi1.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of a modified ProTaper Next technique (PTNm) with that of TruNatomy (TN) in lower molars mesial curved canals using micro-computed tomography (Micro-CT). Sixty mesial canals of first mandibular molars were randomly assigned between two groups (n = 30). After canal scouting with K-File #10, glide path and shaping were carried out with TN or PTNm systems. The PTNm sequence consists of ProGlider, followed by ProTaper Next X1 and apical finishing with NiTiFlex #25 up to working length (WL) to ensure adequate apical cleaning. Samples were scanned using micro-CT and pre- and post-shaping volumes were matched to analyse geometric parameters: the volume of removed dentin; the difference of canal surface; centroid shift, minimum and maximum root canal diameters; cross-sectional areas; the ratio of diameter ratios (RDR) and the ratio of cross-sectional areas (RA). Measurements were assessed 2 mm from the apex and in relation to the middle and coronal root canal thirds. Data were analysed using ANOVA (p < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the groups for any parameter at each level of analysis, except for RA at the coronal level (p = 0.037). The PTNm system showed the tendency to enlarge more in the coronal portion with a lower centroid shift at apical level compared with TN sequence (p > 0.05). Both PTNm and TN sequences demonstrated similar maintenance of original anatomy during the shaping of lower molar mesial curved canals.Entities:
Keywords: dental pulp cavity; mechanical preparation; microtomography; molar; root canal therapy; rotary instruments
Year: 2022 PMID: 35956222 PMCID: PMC9370045 DOI: 10.3390/jcm11154607
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Clin Med ISSN: 2077-0383 Impact factor: 4.964
Sample baseline characteristics of the 60 mesial canals were included in the study. a Apical diameters 1 mm from apical foramen. PTNm, modified ProTaper Next technique; TN, TruNatomy technique.
| PTNm (Mean ± SD) | TN (Mean ± SD) |
| |
|---|---|---|---|
| Canal volume (mm3) | 3.02 ± 0.59 | 3.01 ± 0.55 | 0.23 |
| Canal surface area (mm2) | 24.23 ± 1.94 | 24.59 ± 3.67 | 0.19 |
| Apical diameter a (mm) | 0.15 ± 0.09 | 0.18 ± 0.05 | 0.11 |
3D and 2D parameters utilized for post-shaping analysis in each group. Different superscript letters indicate statistical significance: a,b p < 0.05. For 2D parameters (centroid shift, RDR, and RA) significance was compared for the same level of analysis (coronal, middle, or apical). PTNm, modified ProTaper Next technique; RA, Ratio of Cross-Sectional Areas; RDR, Ratio of Diameters Ratios; TN, TruNatomy technique.
| Increase in Canal Volume (mm3) | Increase in Canal Surface Area (mm2) | Centroid Shift (mm−1) | RDR (Ratio) | RA (Ratio) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Level of Analysis | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD | Mean ± SD |
| Coronal | 1.25 ± 0.94 a | 0.60 ± 0.16 a | 1.82 ± 0.71 a | |||
|
| 1.40 ± 0.80 a | 3.37 ± 2.17 a | Middle | 0.76 ± 0.47 a | 0.73 ± 0.18 a | 1.28 ± 0.22 a |
| Apical | 0.83 ± 0.45 a | 0.76 ± 0.21 a | 1.33 ± 0.36 a | |||
| Coronal | 0.77 ± 0.46 a | 0.61 ± 0.23 a | 1.30 ± 0.21 b | |||
|
| 0.91 ± 0.44 a | 2.24 ± 1.48 a | Middle | 0.67 ± 0.29 a | 0.75 ± 0.14 a | 1.26 ± 0.16 a |
| Apical | 1.45 ± 0.27 a | 0.68 ± 0.26 a | 1.29 ± 0.22 a |
Figure 12D matching of pre-operative (green) and post-shaping (red) canal sections at the apical (A), point of maximum curvature (M), and coronal (C) levels of analysis in both groups.
Figure 2(a). 3D matching of pre-operative (green) and post-shaping (red) canal volumes, and (b). the pre-operative (green) and post-shaping (red) root canal centroids in the mesial canals.