Premium
Comparison of root canal preparation with two rotary NiTi instruments: ProFile .04 and GT Rotary
Author(s) -
Rödig T.,
Hülsmann M.,
Kahlmeier C.
Publication year - 2007
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01270.x
Subject(s) - nickel titanium , root canal , dentistry , orthodontics , smear layer , dental instruments , molar , coronal plane , significant difference , mathematics , materials science , medicine , composite material , anatomy , statistics , shape memory alloy
Aim To compare root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and GT Rotary nickel–titanium instruments (both Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Methodology Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures between 20 and 40° were randomly divided into two groups and embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 using ProFile .04 or GT rotary instruments. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of root canal curvature, postoperative root canal cross‐section, cleaning ability, safety issues and working time. Results Both NiTi systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was <1°. The majority of the root canals prepared with ProFile .04 (80.8%) and GT (84.0%) postoperatively showed a round or oval cross‐section. For debris, ProFile .04 and GT rotary achieved 67.1% and 71.6% scores of 1 and 2, respectively. Concerning the coronal region statistical analysis showed a better result for GT than for ProFile .04. For the middle and apical thirds of the root canals, results did not differ significantly. None of the two systems completely removed smear layer. Ten procedural incidents occurred with ProFile .04 compared with five with GT. Mean working time was shorter for ProFile .04 (131.8 s) than for GT (143.7 s); the difference was not significant. Conclusions Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Smear layer removal was not satisfactory with either systems.