| |
|
|
| Year : 2017 | Volume
: 20
| Issue : 4 | Page : 222-224 |
|
| Comparative study of ProTaper gold, reciproc, and ProTaper universal for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals |
|
|
Hakan Arslan1, Ezgi Doganay Yildiz2, Hicran Ates Gunduz1, Meltem Sumbullu1, Ibrahim Sevki Bayrakdar3, Ertugrul Karatas1, Muhammed Akif Sumbullu4
1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey
3 Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey
4 Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Submission | 04-Mar-2017 |
| Date of Decision | 11-Aug-2017 |
| Date of Acceptance | 24-Oct-2017 |
| Date of Web Publication | 24-Nov-2017 |
|
|
 |
|
 Abstract | | |
Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the root canal transportation, centering ability, and instrumentation times with the ProTaper Gold (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA), Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), and ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: Thirty mesial root canals of mandibular first molars with curvature angles of 35°–70° and radii of 2–6 mm were included in the study. Root canal instrumentation was performed up to F2 or R25. The instrumentation times were recorded. CBCT scanning was performed both pre- and post-instrumentation. Root canal transportation and the centering ratio were calculated for groups, and the data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and least significant difference post hoc tests for the instrumentation time, root canal transportation, and centering ratio at the 95% confidence level (P = 0.05).
Results: At 3, 5, and 7 mm levels, there was no significant difference in the root canal transportation and centering ratio among the groups (P > 0.05). There were significant differences between the Reciproc and ProTaper Universal groups in the instrumentation times (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Root canal transportation and the centering ratio with the ProTaper Gold were similar to those obtained with the ProTaper Universal and Reciproc. Keywords: Centering ability; ProTaper Gold; ProTaper Universal; reciproc; root canal transportation
How to cite this article:
Arslan H, Yildiz ED, Gunduz HA, Sumbullu M, Bayrakdar IS, Karatas E, Sumbullu MA. Comparative study of ProTaper gold, reciproc, and ProTaper universal for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:222-4 |
How to cite this URL:
Arslan H, Yildiz ED, Gunduz HA, Sumbullu M, Bayrakdar IS, Karatas E, Sumbullu MA. Comparative study of ProTaper gold, reciproc, and ProTaper universal for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2023 Oct 4];20:222-4. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2017/20/4/222/219206 |
| Introduction | |  |
Root canal transportation can occur as a result of root canal instrumentation in curved root canals.[1] Inside the curved root canal, the instrument has a tendency to recover its original shape.[2] Several studies demonstrated that flexible nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments resulted in a more centered root canal instrumentation than nonflexible stainless steel hand files.[3],[4] Recently, a more flexible NiTi instrument, ProTaper Gold (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA) has been introduced. According to the manufacturer, ProTaper Gold instruments have the same geometry as that of ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) but offer increased flexibility. The manufacturer claims that the ProTaper Gold instruments have resistance to cyclic fatigue and maintain canal centering, especially when preparing curved canals.[5] To the best of our knowledge, there is no root canal transportation study comparing ProTaper Gold and Universal.
A new concept in NiTi files has been introduced, with different working motions and root canal shaping finished with only a single file. One of these single file systems is Reciproc® (VDW, Munich, Germany), which is used in a reciprocating motion and is made from M-Wire technology. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the root canal transportation, centering ability, and instrumentation times with the ProTaper Gold, Reciproc, and ProTaper Universal using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). The null hypothesis was that there would be no significant difference between the groups.
| Materials and Methods | | |
Mandibular first molars were selected from a collection of teeth that had been extracted for reasons unrelated to this study. The teeth were stored in distilled water until use. The initial inclusion criterion was a tooth having visible curvature in the mesial root. The teeth were decoronated, and the distal root was separated. The teeth were then fixed in a silicone impression material and numbered. The mesial roots were scanned with a CBCT scanner (NewTom FP QR-DVT 9000 Verona, Italy), and the images obtained were analyzed using image analyzing software (ImageJ; http://imagej.nih.gov/ij/) to determine the curvature and the radius. Straight lines, with the same lengths, beginning from the apical and coronal regions were drawn. The midpoints of the lines were marked, and a circle was drawn over the midpoints. The radii were measured, and the angle between the lines was recorded as the curvature angle.
Roots with curvature angles of 35°–70° and radii of 2–6 mm were included in the study. According to these criteria, 30 specimens were selected for the study and assigned according to the curvature and radius to three root canal shaping procedures (n = 10). According to a one-way ANOVA, there was no significant between-group difference in the canal curvatures and radii (P > 0.05).
The working length of the canals was determined by inserting a #10 K-file (Dentsply Maillefer) into the root canal terminus and subtracting 1 mm from this measurement. Each instrument was used in four root canals. Root canal instrumentation was performed up to F2 according to the manufacturer's instructions in the ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer), ProTaper Gold (Dentsply Tulsa), and Reciproc groups. The instrumentation times for the groups were also recorded. The instruments were used according to the manufacturers' instructions.
After completion of the root canal instrumentation, the roots were placed in a silicone impression material using the same setup as that used in the preinstrumentation. Scanning was performed, with images obtained at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apical terminus of the root for both pre- and post-instrumentation. Root canal transportation was calculated was calculated for each level using the following formula, as described by Gambill, Alder[6]: (x1−x2)-(y1−y2). x1 and x2 represent the shortest mesial distances from the outside of the curved root to the periphery of the uninstrumented and instrumented canal, respectively, and y1 and y2 represent the shortest distal distances from the outside of the curved root to the periphery of the uninstrumented and instrumented canal, respectively. The canal centering ratio at each level was calculated using the following formula[6]: (x1−x2)/(y−y2) or (y1−y2)/(x1−x2) [Figure 1]. | Figure 1: Measurement of root canal transportation (a) before, and (b) after instrumentation
Click here to view |
Data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and least significant difference post hoc tests (P = 0.05) for the instrumentation time, root canal transportation, and centering ratio. The statistical analyses were performed using IBM® SPSS® Statistics 20 software (IBM SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA) at the 95% confidence level (P = 0.05).
| Results | | |
[Table 1] shows the root canal transportation and centering ratio values at the 3, 5, and 7 mm levels for the groups. At these three levels, there was no significant difference in the root canal transportation and centering ratio among the groups (P > 0.05). | Table 1: Mean Root Canal Transportation (mm) and Centering Ratio Values of the Tested Groups. There were no significant differences among the groups in the transportation and canal centering values at any level (P>0.05)
Click here to view |
No instrument fracture occurred during instrumentation in any of the groups. The mean and standard deviation for the instrumentation times were 1.05 ± 0.43 s for Reciproc, 0.78 ± 0.34 s for ProTaper Gold, and 0.63 ± 0.35 s for ProTaper Universal. There were significant differences in the instrumentation times between the Reciproc and ProTaper Universal groups (P < 0.05). However, the instrumentation times of the ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal were similar (P > 0.05).
| Discussion | | |
The present study evaluated the root canal transportation, centering ability, and instrumentation times with the ProTaper Gold, Reciproc, and ProTaper Universal using CBCT. According to the results of the present study, there were significant between-group differences in the root canal transportation and centering ratio. Thus, the null hypothesis was rejected.
The ProTaper Gold has a convex triangular cross-section and a progressive taper. It also has a noncutting tip design, allowing the instrument to follow the original shape of the root canal. The ProTaper Universal has the same features. One important difference between these systems is that the ProTaper Gold has been metallurgically enhanced through heat-treatment technology.[5] According to the results of the present study, there were no significant differences in the root canal transportation and centering ratio between the ProTaper Gold and Universal. In the current literature, there are no studies comparing the ProTaper Gold with other instruments. However, the ProTaper Universal and Reciproc have been compared previously. Arslan et al.[7] compared the effects of six different rotary systems on the root canal transportation and the centering ratio and found that Reciproc and ProTaper Universal produced similar root canal transportation in the preparation of mesial canals of mandibular molars. This finding is in agreement with our results.
CBCT is a noninvasive and reliable method for evaluating root canal geometry.[8] Previous studies confirmed that CBCT was useful to assess the effectiveness of rotary systems with regard to root canal geometry.[9],[10]
| Conclusion | | |
The root canal transportation and centering ration of the ProTaper Gold were similar to that produced with the ProTaper Universal and Reciproc.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG Jr. The “balanced force” concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1985;11:203-11.  |
| 2. | Weine FS, Kelly RF, Bray KE. Effect of preparation with endodontic handpieces on original canal shape. J Endod 1976;2:298-303. |
| 3. | Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod 2010;36:904-7. |
| 4. | Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997;23:503-7. |
| 5. | Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, West JD. Endodontic canal preparation: New innovations in glide path management and shaping canals. Dent today 2014;33:118-23. |
| 6. | Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22:369-75. |
| 7. | Arslan H, Gok T, Saygili G, Altintop H, Akçay M, Çapar ID, et al. Evaluation of effectiveness of various irrigating solutions on removal of calcium hydroxide mixed with 2% chlorhexidine gel and detection of orange-brown precipitate after removal. J Endod 2014;40:1820-3. |
| 8. | Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Next instruments with and without glide path. J Endod 2014;40:2053-6. |
| 9. | Hashem AA, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RA, Foda MY, Omar GA. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary NiTi shaping systems. J Endod 2012;38:996-1000. |
| 10. | Hartmann MS, Barletta FB, Camargo Fontanella VR, Vanni JR. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: A comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007;33:962-5. |
Correspondence Address:
Ezgi Doganay Yildiz
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, 71450
Turkey
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_94_17
[Figure 1]
[Table 1] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Root Canal Preparation of a Commercial Artificial Tooth versus Natural Tooth—A MicroCT Study |
|
| Tiago Reis, Cláudia Barbosa, Margarida Franco, Catarina Batista, Nuno Alves, Pablo Castelo-Baz, José Martin-Cruces, Benjamín Martin-Biedma | | Applied Sciences. 2023; 13(16): 9400 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer generated by rotary instrumentation techniques: An in-vitro study |
|
| S K Moin Ul-Haq, S Anita Rao, T Muralidhar, Buggaveeti Pradeep | | The Journal of Dental Panacea. 2022; 3(4): 169 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 3 |
Shaping ability of ProTaper Gold and WaveOne Gold nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped root canals |
|
| Lu Shi, Junling Zhou, Jie Wan, Yunfei Yang | | Journal of Dental Sciences. 2021; | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 4 |
Comparison of Volumetric Changes in Primary Molar Root Canals by Four Different File Systems: A Cone-beam Computed Tomography Study |
|
| Faizal C Peedikayil, Puzhikkunnath K Nabeeh, Chandru T Premkumar, Soni Kottayi, Dhanesh Narasimhan | | Journal of South Asian Association of Pediatric Dentistry. 2021; 4(2): 112 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 5 |
Shaping Ability of Two-shape and ProTaper Gold Files by using Cone-beam Computed Tomography |
|
| Vinisha Pandey, Shalini Singh, Tarun Gupta, Harshit Singhania, Pooja Pandey, Shweta Gangavane | | The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice. 2019; 20(3): 330 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 6726 | | | Printed | 137 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 356 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 5 | | |
|
|
