Comparison of 2 Canal Preparation Techniques in the Induction of Microcracks: A Pilot Study with Cadaver Mandibles

The incidence of dentinal cracks during root canal preparations with reciprocating single-file and rotary-file systems: A meta-analysis

“…Furthermore, no significant difference was detected between Reciproc and the unprepared group. The results of an in situ experiment on lower incisors from adult human cadaver skulls indicated no significant differences between experimental groups 34) . The other in situ experiment on mandibular first and second premolars of pig jaws showed no dentinal cracks 35) .…”

“…Some studies relating to dentinal cracks formation during root canal enlargement with rotary files (multifile systems) and reciprocating files (single-file systems) were rejected for our meta-analysis, as they did not meet the inclusion criteria. However, we also completed a basic review of these studies 20,[30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40] . We found that most of the results [30][31][32][33]36) were aligned with the results of our meta-analysis.…”

Root-originating dentinal defects: methodological aspects and clinical relevance

“…Some in vitro studies corroborated the influence of aging in the presence of dentinal defects in un-instrumented roots as dentinal defects were present in 16.6% of roots from patients with mean age of 54 years old and 50% in 81-year old patients (Arias et al 2014;Coelho et al 2017). A recent micro-CT study showed significantly more dentinal defects in roots obtained from patients ranging from 40 to 71 years when compared to patients with an age range of 20-39 years old (PradeepKumar et al 2017).…”

“…When Arslan et al stained similar specimens, the percentage of dentinal defects observed was 16.6% . A different approach was adopted by Arias et al: the root canal space was covered in order to mask for the evaluators whether the canals had been instrumented or not; in that study, when the evaluators were blinded, 50% of the un-instrumented specimens showed dentinal defects (Arias et al 2014). Another recent study has focused only on un-instrumented roots; the canal space of the specimens was masked, and the evaluators observed 10% of mandibular molars with dentinal defects (Coelho et al 2016b).…”

“…The rootsectioning method was modified through masking the un-instrumented roots to remove evaluator bias (Arias et al 2014), using LED transillumination (Fig. 3) to improve specificity (Coelho et al 2017), and recently, micro-CT technology has also been used (Zuolo et al 2017).…”