A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration

Powell, Steven E.; Simon, James H.; Maze, Ben B.

doi:10.1016/s0099-2399(86)80111-x

Cited by 52 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Roane & Sabala (48) themselves and further studies (49, 50, 131, 185, 203, 207, 208, 213–217) described good results for the preparation of curved canals without or with only minimal straightening. However, others reported a relatively high incidence of procedural problems such as root perforations (218) or instrument fractures (219).…”

Section: Manual Preparation Techniques and Results Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means

Hülsmann¹,

Peters²,

Dummer³

2005

Endodontic Topics

715

651

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preparation of root canal systems includes both enlargement and shaping of the complex endodontic space together with its disinfection. A variety of instruments and techniques have been developed and described for this critical stage of root canal treatment. Although many reports on root canal preparation can be found in the literature, definitive scientific evidence on the quality and clinical appropriateness of different instruments and techniques remains elusive. To a large extent this is because of methodological problems, making comparisons among different investigations difficult if not impossible. The first section of this paper discusses the main problems with the methodology of research relating to root canal preparation while the remaining section critically reviews current endodontic instruments and shaping techniques.

show abstract

Section: Manual Preparation Techniques and Results Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means

Hülsmann¹,

Peters²,

Dummer³

2005

Endodontic Topics

715

651

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…16 However, the microhardness of resin-based materials is different from that of natural teeth. 17 The Knoop hardness number was reported 36 for resin blocks, and between 40 and 72 for dentine. 18 Resin may be softened by heat created with rotary instruments, and resin material does not cut in the same manner as dentine.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Shaping Ability of Five Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments in Simulated Root Canals

Göktürk¹,

Yücel²,

Sisman³

2015

Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of a recently introduced instrument (Revo-S) in comparison with the four current instruments (HeroShaper, Mtwo, ProTaper, RaCe) in simulated root canals. Material and methods: Nickel-Titanium systems (n=15 resin in each case) were used to prepare 34-35° curved and S-shaped simulated root canals in clear resin blocks. The width of resin removal was measured by comparing the pre-and postoperative images under a stereomicroscope. The amount and direction of transportation, the centering ability and the total amount of resin removal were determined. Canal aberration incidence, preparation time, and instrument deformation were also recorded. Results: In both canal types, the RaCe group prepared canals more rapidly (P < 0.05) and created no canal aberrations.The ProTaper Universal group was significantly slower than other groups (P < 0.05) for both canal types. The tapered canal form was obtained in the Mtwo, ProTaper Universal; and RaCe groups in 34-35° curved canals; and only the RaCe group in S-shaped canals. Some deformations but no instrument fractures were observed for HeroShaper, Mtwo, and Revo-S groups. Conclusion: RaCe rotary Nickel-Titanium instruments, probably do to their triangular cross-sectional shape with alternating cutting edges and sequence encompassing a high number of instruments, exhibited a better centrally shaping and fewer canal aberrations.

show abstract

“…The differences observed between groups P and H may be explained by the geometric design of ProFile and HeroShaper and by the difference in experiences of operators. With regards to the instrument design, Powell et al 25) has reported that the tip design of the instrument affects the shape of canals and the levels of deviation.…”

Section: ⅳ Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of shaping ability between various hybrid instrumentation methods with ProTaper

Hong

Park

Hur

et al. 2006

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping abilities of various hybrid instrumentation method using constant tapered file systems with ProTaper � S1 and the difference between experts and inexperienced clinicians in use of NiTi file.Three hybrid methods used in this study were composed of ProTaper � S1 and K-Flexofile � (group S), ProTaper � S1 and HeroShaper � (group H), and ProTaper � S1 and ProFile � (group P), respectively. The ProTaper � -alone method (group C) was introduced as a control group. After canal preparation, the lapse of time was recorded. The images of pre-and post-operative canal were scanned and superimposed. Amounts of instrumented canal widths and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2 and 3 ㎜ levels and statistical analysis was performed.In this study, both of the group C and S took more time to prepare canals than other groups. Inexperienced operators required more time for the entire preparation with the groups C and H than the experienced (p < 0.05). And the centering ratio of group P were preferable to ProTaper � -alone method or the hybrid technique using stainless steel files. As such, within experienced operators, group H also showed better results in addition to the group P.Under these condition, the hybrid methods of each the ProFile � system and HeroShaper � with ProTaper � are recommendable comparative to ProTaper � -alone method. According to the results, the hybrid instrumentation method is a more appropriate method of canal preparation than single file system for narrow or curved canals.

show abstract

A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration

Cited by 52 publications

References 11 publications

Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means

Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means

The Shaping Ability of Five Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments in Simulated Root Canals

Comparison of shaping ability between various hybrid instrumentation methods with ProTaper

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About