Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2014; 08(02): 191-196
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.130598
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Comparison of cleaning efficiency and deformation characteristics of Twisted File and ProTaper rotary instruments

Hang Li
1   Department of Endodontics, The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedicine, Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
,
Chenzheng Zhang
1   Department of Endodontics, The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedicine, Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
,
Qing Li
1   Department of Endodontics, The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedicine, Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
,
Changning Wang
2   Department of Periodontics, The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedicine, Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
,
Yaling Song
1   Department of Endodontics, The State Key Laboratory Breeding Base of Basic Science of Stomatology and Key Laboratory for Oral Biomedicine, Ministry of Education, School and Hospital of Stomatology, Wuhan University, Wuhan, China
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
24 September 2019 (online)

  PDF Download Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The objective of the following study is to compare the cleaning efficiency and deformation characteristics of Twisted File (TF) and ProTaper (PT) nickel-titanium rotary instruments in root canal preparation. Materials and Methods: A total of 52 canals from 26 extracted maxillary first molars were randomly assigned into two groups of each including 13 mesiobuccal and 12 distobuccal (DB) canals. Two DB canals were as blank controls. After preparation with TF and PT, we recorded the preparation time and evaluate the amounts of debris and smear layer at apical, middle and coronal canals under scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Three cross-sections of canals at 3 mm, 5 mm and 7 mm from the apex foramens were scanned before and after preparation under micro-computed tomography. Changes of the cross-section area (CSA) at the three levels were calculated with Photoshop CS4. File deformation was also investigated under SEM. Two groups were statistically compared with Mann-Whitney test and independent sample t-test. Results: Less debris and smear layer were found in coronal regions of canals prepared with TF (P = 0.006, P = 0.001, respectively). TF group displayed more CSA change than PT group (P = 0.045) at cross-sections of 5 mm from the apex foramens and took significantly less preparation time than PT group did (P = 9.06 × 10−28). All five TF files without obvious micro-cracks and two out of 25 PT files with many micro-cracks showed visible unwound deformation. Conclusion: Neither TF nor PT achieves complete cleanliness of canal walls. Their deformation features might indicate different fracture resistance. TF single-file technique would substantially shorten the time of root canal preparation.

Key words:

Cleaning efficiency - deformation - ProTaper - Twisted File
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Smith CS, Setchell DJ, Harty FJ. Factors influencing the success of conventional root canal therapy – A five-year retrospective study. Int Endod J 1993; 26: 321-33
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schäfer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 92: 215-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Song YL, Bian Z, Fan B, Fan MW, Gutmann JL, Peng B. A comparison of instrument-centering ability within the root canal for three contemporary instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2004; 37: 265-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Merrett SJ, Bryant ST, Dummer PM. Comparison of the shaping ability of RaCe and FlexMaster rotary nickel-titanium systems in simulated canals. J Endod 2006; 32: 960-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2008; 34: 198-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Metzger Z, Zary R, Cohen R, Teperovich E, Paqué F. The quality of root canal preparation and root canal obturation in canals treated with rotary versus self-adjusting files: A three-dimensional micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2010; 36: 1569-73
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Tripi TR, Bonaccorso A, Condorelli GG. Cyclic fatigue of different nickel-titanium endodontic rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 102: e106-14
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Mounce RE. A clinically relevant review of nickel titanium canal enlargement. Available from: http://www.ineedce.com/coursereview.aspx?url=2049%2FPDF%2F1103cei_crr_canalenlargement.pdf and scid=14498 [Publication Date 2008 May; Expiry Date 2014 Feb].
    Google Scholar
  • 9 Kustarci A, Akdemir N, Siso SH, Altunbas D. Apical extrusion of intracanal debris using two engine driven and step-back instrumentation techniques: An in-vitro study. Eur J Dent 2008; 2: 233-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Yin X, Cheung GS, Zhang C, Masuda YM, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K. Micro-computed tomographic comparison of nickel-titanium rotary versus traditional instruments in C-shaped root canal system. J Endod 2010; 36: 708-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Uzun O, Topuz O, Yalpi F, Unsal F, Aydin C, Bodrumlu E. The evaluation of two rotary instrumentation techniques under “operator-related variables” standardized conditions. Eur J Dent 2013; 7: 395-8
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Gambarini G, Grande NM, Plotino G, Somma F, Garala M, De Luca M. et al. Fatigue resistance of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium instruments produced by new manufacturing methods. J Endod 2008; 34: 1003-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Larsen CM, Watanabe I, Glickman GN, He J. Cyclic fatigue analysis of a new generation of nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2009; 35: 401-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Kim HC, Yum J, Hur B, Cheung GS. Cyclic fatigue and fracture characteristics of ground and twisted nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod 2010; 36: 147-52
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Fayyad DM, Elhakim Elgendy AA. Cutting efficiency of twisted versus machined nickel-titanium endodontic files. J Endod 2011; 37: 1143-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Mounce RE. Blended endodontic elegance and simplicity: the single twisted file preparation and matching RealSeal one obturator. Int Dent SA 2010; 12: 40-8
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Liu SB, Fan B, Cheung GS, Peng B, Fan MW, Gutmann JL. et al. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability of rotary ProTaper compared with rotary GT and manual K-Flexofile. Am J Dent 2006; 19: 353-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: A comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997; 23: 301-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Gambarini G. Shaping and cleaning the root canal system: A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of a new instrumentation and irrigation technique. J Endod 1999; 25: 800-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Ghivari S, Kubasad G. Root canal debris removal using different irrigating needles: An SEM study. Indian J Dent Res 2011; 22: 659-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Dai L, Khechen K, Khan S, Gillen B, Loushine BA, Wimmer CE. et al. The effect of QMix, an experimental antibacterial root canal irrigant, on removal of canal wall smear layer and debris. J Endod 2011; 37: 80-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Claridge E, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Williams RL. et al. An analytical Micro CT methodology for quantifying inorganic dentine debris following internal tooth preparation. J Dent 2012; 40: 999-1005
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Mancini M, Armellin E, Casaglia A, Cerroni L, Cianconi L. A comparative study of smear layer removal and erosion in apical intraradicular dentine with three irrigating solutions: A scanning electron microscopy evaluation. J Endod 2009; 35: 900-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Albrecht LJ, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of ProFile GT files. J Endod 2004; 30: 425-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Gambarini G, Laszkiewicz J. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of GT rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 422-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: A review. J Endod 2004; 30: 559-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod 2003; 29: 15-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Park SY, Cheung GS, Yum J, Hur B, Park JK, Kim HC. Dynamic torsional resistance of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2010; 36: 1200-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Miyai K, Ebihara A, Hayashi Y, Doi H, Suda H, Yoneyama T. Influence of phase transformation on the torsional and bending properties of nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 119-26
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Wolcott S, Wolcott J, Ishley D, Kennedy W, Johnson S, Minnich S. et al. Separation incidence of protaper rotary instruments: A large cohort clinical evaluation. J Endod 2006; 32: 1139-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Shen Y, Coil JM, Haapasalo M. Defects in nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. Part 3: A 4-year retrospective study from an undergraduate clinic. J Endod 2009; 35: 193-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Inan U, Gonulol N. Deformation and fracture of Mtwo rotary nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. J Endod 2009; 35: 1396-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Wycoff RC, Berzins DW. An in vitro comparison of torsional stress properties of three different rotary nickel-titanium files with a similar cross-sectional design. J Endod 2012; 38: 1118-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar