No abstract

ProTaper Next files was associated with significantly less extruded apical debris when compared to ProTaper Universal files.

Postoperative pain is a frequent complication associated with root canal treatment, especially during apical instrumentation of tooth with preexisting periradicular inflammation Objectives The aim of this clinical study was to evaluate the influence of the instrumentation techniques on the incidence and intensity of postoperative pain in single-visit root canal treatment.Material and Methods Ninety patients with single root/canal and non-vital pulps were included. The patients were assigned into 3 groups according to root canal instrumentation technique used; modified step-back, reciprocal, and rotational techniques. Root canal treatment was carried out in a single visit and the severity of postoperative pain was assessed via 4-point pain intensity scale. All the participants were called through the phone at 12, 24 and 48 h to obtain the pain scores. Data were analyzed through the Kruskal–Wallis test.Results There was significant difference between all groups (p<0.05). The modified step-back technique produced postoperative pain significantly lower than the rotational (p=0.018) and reciprocal (p=0.020) techniques. No difference was found between the reciprocal and rotational techniques (p=0.868). Postoperative pain in the first 12 h period (p=0.763) and in the 24 h period (p=0.147) was not significantly different between the groups. However, the difference in the 48 h period was statistically different between the groups (p=0.040).Conclusion All instrumentation techniques caused postoperative pain. The modified step-back technique produced less pain compared to the rotational and reciprocal techniques.

The aim of this study was to compare the root filling material that remained after retreatment of curved root canals with chloroform and Endosolv R as solvents. The evaluation employed micro-computed tomography (CT) imaging. Thirty-six extracted molar teeth with curved roots were selected. After preparation with ProTaper rotary instruments, the canals were filled with gutta-percha and AH26 sealer. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups according to solvent used (n = 12) as follows: group 1: chloroform; group 2: Endosolv R; group 3: no solvent (negative control). ProTaper Universal Retreatment files were used to remove each root canal filling and then the self-adjusting file was applied for two minutes. Preoperative and postoperative micro-CT images were used to assess the percentage of residual filling material. The mean percentage of residual filling material was quantified. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups in terms of percentage volume of residual root canal filling.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the dentinal microcrack formation of ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne. Sixty extracted mandibular molars were selected. The mesial roots were resected and randomly divided into four groups (n = 15). The canals were prepared with hand files (group 1), ProTaper Universal (group 2), ProTaper Next (group 3), and WaveOne (group 4) instrument systems. The roots were separated horizontally at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex. Digital images were captured at ×40 magnification using scanning electron microscopy to detect microcrack formation. Statistical analysis was performed by Pearson Chi-square test. The prevalence of microcracks in group 2, group 3, and group 4 were significantly higher when compared to group 1 (p < 0.001). Group 2, group 3, and group 4 demonstrated similar prevalence of microcracks without significant difference (p > 0.05) in all sections. All instruments caused microcracks except for hand file. The highest percentage of microcrack was recorded in 3 mm section for all groups.