English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Objective: In this study, we compared the occurrence of dentinal micro-cracks after use of the ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer), and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) nickel–titanium rotary file systems in root canal preparation. Method: One hundred mandibular anterior teeth were divided into five groups of 20 specimens each. Group 1 served as a control, with no intervention. In group 2, preparation was performed using the step-back technique and K files. In groups 3–5, root canal preparation was performed using the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and Reciproc file systems, respectively. Following preparation, specimens were sectioned at 3, 6, and 9 mm using a Minitom precision cut-off machine. The sections were evaluated under a stereomicroscope. The following scoring system was used to rate specimens: 1, no micro-crack; 2, incomplete micro-crack; and 3, vertical root fracture. The results were statistically assessed (p ≤ 0.05). Results: No micro-crack formation was observed in groups 1 and 2. The highest rate of micro-crack formation was observed in specimens prepared with the ProTaper Universal file system (20%), followed by those prepared with the Reciproc (11.7%) and ProTaper Next (6.7%) file systems. However, no significant difference was detected among groups (p > 0.05). In the groups ProTaper Universal and Reciproc files were used, 1 vertical root fracture was found in 9 mm sections for each. Conclusion: Considering the limitations of in vitro studies, we can conclude that all rotary file systems used in this study led to dentinal micro-crack formation in roots. The ProTaper Universal file system caused more dentinal micro-cracking than did the ProTaper Next and Reciproc file systems.   How to cite this article: Deveci Tac M, Kaya S, Falakaloglu S. Evaluation of dentinal micro-cracks caused by the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next and Reciproc rotary file systems used in root canal preparation. Int Dent Res 2018;8(3):111-16.   Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

Evaluation of dentinal micro-cracks caused by the Protaper Universal, Protaper Next and Reciproc rotary file systems used in root canal preparation