Premium
Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel–titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro‐computed tomography (μCT)
Author(s) -
Stern S.,
Patel S.,
Foschi F.,
Sherriff M.,
Mannocci F.
Publication year - 2012
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.1365-2591.2011.02004.x
Subject(s) - reciprocating motion , centring , instrumentation (computer programming) , materials science , significant difference , nickel titanium , dentistry , orthodontics , mathematics , medicine , computer science , composite material , mechanical engineering , engineering , statistics , gas compressor , shape memory alloy , operating system
Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel–titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro‐computed tomography (μCT). International Endodontic Journal , 45 , 514–523, 2012. Abstract Aim To compare the centring ability and the shaping ability of ProTaper (PT) files used in reciprocating motion and PT and Twisted Files (TF) used in continuous rotary motion, and to compare the volume changes obtained with the different instrumentation techniques using micro‐computed tomography. Methodology Sixty mesial canals of thirty mandibular molars were randomly assigned to three instrumentation techniques: group 1, canals prepared with the PT series (up to F2) ( n = 20); group 2, canals prepared with the F2 PT in reciprocating motion ( n = 20); group 3 canals prepared with the TF series (size 25) ( n = 20). Teeth were scanned pre‐ and post‐operatively using micro‐computed tomography to measure volume and shaping changes, and the obtained results were statistically analysed using parametric tests. Results The increase in canal volume obtained with the three instrumentation techniques was not significantly different. Canals were transported mostly towards the mesial aspect in the apical‐ and mid‐third of the roots, and towards the furcal aspect coronally. No difference in the transportation and centring ratio was found between the techniques. There was no significant difference between the times of instrumentation (TF: 62.5 ± 5.4 s; PT: 60.6 ± 3.9 s; and F2 PT file in reciprocating motion: 51.0 ± 3.3 s). Conclusions ProTaper files used in reciprocating motion and PT and TF used in continuous rotary motion were capable of producing centred preparations with no substantial procedural errors.