Qualitative analysis of files of four different rotary systems, before and after being used for the twelfth time

Abstract

The aim of this study was to make a comparative evaluation of the surface topography of the cervical third and tip of four different rotary systems, before and after being used 12 times, in resin blocks with simulated root canals with standardized 45° curvatures, and analyzed by scanning electronic microscopy (SEM). A total of 1,440 resin blocks with simulated root canals and standardized curvatures were used. The blocks were divided into four groups and prepared by the crown down technique according to the manufacturers' recommendations: Group 1 (G1)--K3®, Group 2 (G2)--Protaper Universal®, Group 3 (G3)--Twisted Files®, and Group 4 (G4)--Biorace®. After each preparation, the instruments were washed and autoclaved. A total of 24 instruments were selected, being three new instruments and three after having been used for the 12th time, from each group. These instruments were analyzed by SEM. To perform the evaluation, 24 micrographs were observed by 12 evaluators who attributed a score to the images according to a template. In the qualitative analysis of the cervical region and tip of new instruments, it was observe that the files of Groups G4 and G2 were the least rough and those of G1, the roughest. In the same manner, the cervical region of the instruments was qualitatively analyzed after the 12th time of using them, and there was no statistically significant difference at a level of 1% (ANOVA P < 0.01) between G2 and G4 as well as between G1 and G3. As regards the tip, it was observed that there was no statistically significant difference, at a level of 1%, between the groups: G1 and G3, G1 and G4, and between G3 and G4, and there was statistically significant difference at a level of 1%, between group G2 and the other groups, with G3 having the greatest roughness (ANOVA P < 0.01).

Assessment of canal centering ability and topography of three nickel- titanium rotary systems

“…In accordance with Yamazaki-Arasaki et al 15 (2013), BioRaCe and ProTaper instruments presented less roughness than other systems. On the other hand, WP and WN instruments showed irregular edges under SEM.…”

“…BR instruments receive an electropolishing surface treatment [12][13][14][15] , in order to remove machining defects, while WP and WN instruments are not submitted to any surface treatment.…”