Open AccessShaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in simulated 3D-printed root canal models
Author(s) -
David Christofzik,
Andreas Bartols,
Mahmoud Khaled Faheem,
Doreen Schroeter,
Birte GroessnerSchreiber,
Christof Doerfer
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
plos one
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.99
H-Index - 332
ISSN - 1932-6203
DOI - 10.1371/journal.pone.0201129
Subject(s) - root canal , post hoc , instrumentation (computer programming) , 3d printed , root (linguistics) , dentistry , mathematics , orthodontics , materials science , biomedical engineering , computer science , medicine , linguistics , philosophy , operating system
The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of four root canal preparation systems in newly developed 3D-printed root canal models. Materials and methods For this study, 1080 3D-printed acrylic resin blocks with nine different root canal configurations were produced. They were prepared with Reciproc R25 (#25), F6 SkyTaper (#25 and #30) F360 (#25 and #35) and One Shape (#25) (N = 30 per system). Pre- and post-instrumentation images were superimposed for evaluation of the centering ratio of the different systems. Ledges, instrument fractures and preparation times were also recorded. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey tests were conducted, comparing the mean canal centering ratios and the mean preparation times. Results There were significant differences between all systems regarding the centering ratios in the different root canal configurations (ANOVA p < 0.001). The root canal configuration had considerable effect on the centering ratio of the instruments. The best overall mean centering ratios were achieved with F6 SkyTaper #25 instruments especially in canal configurations with big curvature angles and radii, while F360 #35 was least centered especially in canals with small curvature angles and radii. Most ledges occurred with OneShape, while it was the significantly (p < 0.001) fastest preparation system (86.7 s (SD 13.53)) and Reciproc the significantly (p < 0.001) slowest (103.0 s (SD 20.67)). Conclusion 3D-printed root canals are suitable to produce challenging canal configurations and to investigate the limitations of root canal instruments. We found that all instruments caused canal transportations. However, F6 SkyTaper #25 files had better overall centering ratios than the other instruments. In canal configurations with small curvature radii, the centering ratio of some instruments is low and the probability for ledges is increased.