Canal wall thickness after preparation with NiTi rotary files

Brkanic, Tatjana; Stojšin, Ivana; Živković, Slavoljub; Vukoje, Karolina

doi:10.1002/jemt.21049

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…1 However, complete mechanical preparation of the root canal system is rarely achieved, because of the variations and complexity of the root canal anatomy. [2][3][4] In recent years, rotary instruments and oscillating systems have drawn considerable interest based on the efficacy, speed and safety of the preparation procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems

Moura-Netto

Palo

Camargo³

et al. 2013

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare two endodontic preparation systems using micro-CT analysis. Twenty-four one-rooted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned to two groups. The samples (n = 12) of Group 1 were prepared using the ProTaper Universal rotary system, while Group 2 (n = 12) was prepared using the EndoEZE AET system complemented by manual apical preparation with K-type hand files up to #30. A 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution was used in both groups for irrigating. Both groups were scanned by highresolution microcomputed tomography before and after preparation (SkyScan 1172, SkyScan, Kontich, Belgium). The root canal volume and surface area was measured before and after preparation, and the differences were calculated and analyzed for statistically significant differences using ANOVA complemented by the Tukey test (p < 0.05). The results showed no statistically significant differences between the mean volumes of dentin removal by the two systems. However, the EndoEZE AET system presented a significantly greater mean surface area compared to the ProTaper system (p < 0.05). The EndoEZE AET system enabled preparation of a greater root canal surface area when compared to the ProTaper Universal system. There seemed to be no difference in dentin volume loss between the two systems used.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems

Moura-Netto

Palo

Camargo³

et al. 2013

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…None of the systems was able to touch all the root canal walls. Another study [25] tested five Rotary systems and two manual systems (ProTaper, GT, ProFile, K-3, FlexMaster) and two manual NiTi systems (ProTaper, GT) as to the remaining dentine and canal diameter. Differences were not found amongst groups and all systems provided good preparation quality.…”

Section: Canal Anatomy Interferencementioning

confidence: 99%

Reciprocating versus Rotary instruments: a review

Laurindo

Figueiredo

2016

Rev. Odonto Ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: Literature started to point out essential parameters involving reciprocating instruments through clinical and laboratory essays. Looking into apical debris extrusion, incidence of instrument breakage, canal centering ability, apical zipping, a myriad of information has become available. The aim of this review is to revisit the literature and compare reciprocal and continuous rotation techniques.Methods: A review of current literature may collect recent findings.Conclusion: Reciprocating systems are similar in some aspects in comparison to rotational systems, with regards to cleaning ability, centered preparations, cleaning ability, reduction of Enterococcus faecalis and dentine defects. On the other hand, being single use and enhanced resistance to fatigue, together with novel methods to treat the alloy may lead to the thought that reciprocal systems are an excellent aid to root canal preparation. However, more needs to be understood about this new era of instruments to verify, long term and especially in vivo, the success and failure when these instruments are used.

show abstract

“…Root canal preparation is the most important phase of endodontic treatment and consists of cleaning and shaping canal space adequately. 1 However, complete mechanical preparation of the root canal system is rarely achieved, because of the variations and complexity of the root canal anatomy. [2][3][4] In recent years, rotary instruments and oscillating systems have drawn considerable interest based on the efficacy, speed and safety of the preparation procedure.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems

Moura-Netto¹,

Palo²,

Camargo³

et al. 2013

Braz. oral res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to compare two endodontic preparation systems using micro-CT analysis. Twenty-four one-rooted mandibular premolars were selected and randomly assigned to two groups. The samples (n = 12) of Group 1 were prepared using the ProTaper Universal rotary system, while Group 2 (n = 12) was prepared using the En-doEZE AET system complemented by manual apical preparation with K-type hand files up to #30. A 2.5% sodium hypochlorite solution was used in both groups for irrigating. Both groups were scanned by highresolution microcomputed tomography before and after preparation (SkyScan 1172, SkyScan, Kontich, Belgium). The root canal volume and surface area was measured before and after preparation, and the differences were calculated and analyzed for statistically significant differences using ANOVA complemented by the Tukey test (p < 0.05). The results showed no statistically significant differences between the mean volumes of dentin removal by the two systems. However, the EndoEZE AET system presented a significantly greater mean surface area compared to the ProTaper system (p < 0.05). The EndoEZE AET system enabled preparation of a greater root canal surface area when compared to the ProTaper Universal system. There seemed to be no difference in dentin volume loss between the two systems used.

show abstract

Canal wall thickness after preparation with NiTi rotary files

Abstract: There was no significant difference neither in maximal and minimal RDT, nor in canal diameters shaped with different NiTi instruments tested. All tested NiTi files have accomplished good quality preparation of apical root canal parts.

Cited by 4 publications

References 23 publications

Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems

Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems

Reciprocating versus Rotary instruments: a review

Micro-CT assessment of two different endodontic preparation systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About