Fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth after instrumentation with different nickel titanium systems

Khan, Sameer; Nagpal, Rajni; Mehmood, Nida; Agarwal, Meenal; Khan, Zaid Nabi

doi:10.4103/endo.endo_23_20

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It has been found that the tip design of rotating instruments, cross-sectional geometry, constant or variable pitch and taper, and flute can be associated with cracking. 29 The findings of this study support the findings of that study. The fracture resistance of these three instruments is thought to be influenced by their different cross-sectional shapes and taper sizes.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

“…Multiple factors, including those related to the instruments, may influence the fracture resistance of the teeth that have undergone endodontic treatment, according to some reports. It has been found that the tip design of rotating instruments, cross-sectional geometry, constant or variable pitch and taper, and flute can be associated with cracking 29. The findings of this study support the findings of that study.…”

supporting

confidence: 88%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of fracture resistance of teeth with prepared protaper next, protaper gold, and hyflex CM rotary files

Rinastiti

Widyastuti

Hadriyanto

2023

Majalah Kedokteran Gigi Indonesia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preparation of the root canal system is a crucial step in root canal treatment. Endodontically treated teeth differ structurally from healthy, untreated teeth. This can lead to root cracking by creating pressure on the canal wall, reducing the fracture resistance of the tooth. Different designs, including cross-sectional shape, tip, taper, flute, radial land, helix angle, rake angle, and pitch, can influence the outcome of the root canal preparation and the risk of root fracture. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of teeth after root canal preparation using three different NiTi rotary files: ProTaper Next (PN), ProTaper Gold (PG), and HyFlex CM (HC). Thirty premolars with a single and straight root canal were decoronated at the cementoenamel junction, leaving 14 mm of the root. The subjects were divided into 3 groups. Group 1 (n = 10) was prepared using PN, group 2 (n = 10) was prepared using PG, and group 3 (n = 10) was prepared using HC. After instrumentation and irrigation, the specimens were subjected to a continuous vertical compressive force (crosshead-speed of 2.28 mm/sec) in order to record the force (in newtons) until root fracture. To describe the surface characteristic of the dentinal root after the preparation, a section fragment from the apical third of the specimens was observed using a scanning electron microscope (SEM) at 2500x magnification. The micrographs were analyzed according to the Hulsman’s method. The results demonstrated that there was a statistically significant difference in root fracture resistance among the three groups. (p = 0.043). The LSD post hoc test indicated that HC showed a higher root fracture resistance (p < 0.05) compared to both PN and PG. In conclusion, the different file systems of PN, PG, and HC instruments generate different root fracture resistance of teeth. In comparison to PN and PG, HC instruments tend to result in increased fracture resistance.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 90%

supporting

confidence: 88%