| |
|
|
| Year : 2021 | Volume
: 24
| Issue : 3 | Page : 246-251 |
|
| Canal transportation and centering ability of root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems with and without PathFiles in cone-beam computed tomography-based three-dimensional molar prototypes |
|
|
M Sruthi Sunildath1, Josey Mathew1, Liza George1, RV Vineet1, Priya Thomas2, Dhanya John1
1 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Annoor Dental College and Hospital, Ernakulam, Kerala, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Annoor Dental College and Hospital, Ernakulam, Kerala, India
Click here for correspondence address and email
| Date of Submission | 14-Apr-2021 |
| Date of Decision | 04-Aug-2021 |
| Date of Acceptance | 12-Aug-2021 |
| Date of Web Publication | 08-Dec-2021 |
|
|
 |
|
 Abstract | | |
Background: It is important to use instruments that cause minimal changes in the canal path for root canal preparation. There is inadequate literature comparing rotary and reciprocating systems and hand files. No study used three-dimensional printed models to compare rotary, reciprocating, and hand files.
Aims: We aimed to assess the canal transportation and centering ability of WaveOne Gold, ProTaper Gold, and NiTi Flex K-file systems with and without glide path preparation.
Material and Methods: Forty-nine resin models were randomly divided into Group I A – WaveOne Gold with WaveOne Gold Glider and Group I B – WaveOne Gold without glide path; Group II A – ProTaper Gold with ProGlider and Group II B – ProTaper Gold without glide path; and Group III A – NiTi Flex K-files with no. 10 stainless steel K-file and Group III B – NiTi Flex K-files without glide path. Pre- and postinstrumentation cross-sectional images at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm were compared.
Results: WaveOne Gold caused the least canal transportation and improved centering ability (P < 0.05). NiTi Flex K-files transported the canal more than others in the apical levels (3, 5 mm). Glide path creation reduced canal transportation and improved canal-centering ability.
Conclusions: WaveOne Gold system has better centering ability and lesser canal transportation than ProTaper Gold and NiTi Flex K-file. Glide path creation reduced canal transportation and improved canal-centering ability.
Keywords: Cone-beam computed tomography; microscopy; molar; nitinol; root canal preparation
How to cite this article:
Sunildath M S, Mathew J, George L, Vineet R V, Thomas P, John D. Canal transportation and centering ability of root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems with and without PathFiles in cone-beam computed tomography-based three-dimensional molar prototypes. J Conserv Dent 2021;24:246-51 |
How to cite this URL:
Sunildath M S, Mathew J, George L, Vineet R V, Thomas P, John D. Canal transportation and centering ability of root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems with and without PathFiles in cone-beam computed tomography-based three-dimensional molar prototypes. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2023 Jun 4];24:246-51. Available from: https://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2021/24/3/246/331999 |
| Introduction | |  |
The elimination of microorganisms through chemomechanical preparation is essential for the success of endodontic treatment. Even with advanced instrumentation technology, effective cleaning of the entire root canal system remains a challenge.[1] The risk factors that may contribute to treatment failure are iatrogenic procedural errors in the preparation of curved root canals, such as instrument separation, ledge, zips, perforations, and apical transportation.[2],[3]
Canal transportation is the removal of canal wall structure on the outside curve in the apical half of the canal due to the tendency of files to restore themselves to their original linear shape during canal preparation, leading to ledge formation and possible perforation. Canal centering is the capacity of the instrument to remain centered within the canal. This ability indicates whether or not the dentin removal over the prepared area is spread evenly by the instrument.[4]
Glide path is a smooth radicular tunnel from canal orifice to physiologic terminus (foraminal constriction).[5] Creation of glide path prior to the use of rotary and reciprocating systems helps to maintain original canal anatomy.[6],[7] It can be created both with rotary and hand instruments. Hand files, however, are said to consume much time, especially in a tooth having obliterated canals or canals with severe curvature. WaveOne Gold Glider, reciprocating glide path file, and ProGlider rotary glide path files are claimed to reduce the chances of canal transportation and deviation.[8],[9]
The earlier studies conducted on extracted teeth could not ensure uniformity because of variation in canal anatomy in these teeth. With cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based three-dimensional (3D) printed prototypes, standardization of the models with the highest fabrication accuracy is possible. Superimposing pre- and postinstrumentation images are possible with transparent simulated root canal models.[10],[11] Measurements can be made at different root canal levels to calculate canal transportation and centering ability using a digital microscope.
Thus, the purpose of the current study is to evaluate and compare canal transportation and centering ability after using WaveOne Gold reciprocating system, ProTaper Gold rotary system, and NiTi Flex K-files (hand) with and without glide path preparation 3D printed resin models of molars with severe curvature of roots.
| Materials and Methods | | |
A mandibular first molar with a mesiobuccal canal having curvatures of 35° in the mesial-distal direction was selected and decoronated at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) with a diamond cutting disk to a standardized root length of 15 mm [Figure 1]. The curvature of the sample was measured with the help of Schneider's technique.[12] The apical patency was checked using the stainless steel no 10 K hand file. CBCT scan of the tooth was done. The acquired CBCT scan data were converted into stereolithography files to use the 3D printer. Forty-nine identical resin models were fabricated from that extracted human mandibular first molar tooth using Formlabs standard clear resin (Formlabs, Somerville, Massachusetts, USA) [Figure 2]. One model was used for getting preinstrumentation images. The model was sectioned using a diamond disc at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm from the root apex, and cross sectional images were captured by digital microscopy (polarizing microscope Lawrence & Mayo,Model: N400M, Mumbai, India) at a magnification of ×4. These images were saved and compared with their corresponding postinstrumentation ones.
The models were randomly divided into three equal groups (n = 16) based on the instrumentation system. Each group was then divided into two subgroups based on glide path preparation as follows:
- Group I
- Subgroup I A – WaveOne Gold reciprocating system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) with glide path creation using WaveOne Gold Glider (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland)
- Subgroup I B – WaveOne Gold reciprocating system without glide path creation.
- Group II
- Subgroup II A – ProTaper Gold rotary system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) with glide path creation using ProGlider (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland)
- Subgroup II B – ProTaper Gold rotary system without glide path creation.
- Group III
- Subgroup III A – NiTi Flex K-files (hand) system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) with glide path creation
- Subgroup III B – NiTi Flex K-files (hand) system without glide path creation.
A 6:1 low-speed, low-torque, endo motor X-Smart plus (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was used to operate the various rotary systems as per the manufacturer's instructions. WaveOne Gold Glider was used at a speed of 350 rotations/min and torque 1.5 Ncm (0.15 tip size). ProGlider was used at a speed of 300 rotations/min, torque 2 Ncm (0.16 tip size). Glide path was performed with stainless steel 10 size K-file (10 #, 0.02) in the third group. All the pathfinders were instrumented up to the apex.
In Group I, canals were prepared using WaveOne Gold reciprocating primary file (25#, 0.08). In Group II, canals were prepared using ProTaper Gold files following a sequence of SX, S1, S2, F1, and F2. In Group III, NiTi K flex files were used up to size 25. All the instruments were used only for a single time.
Following instrumentation, the resin models were sectioned using a diamond disc at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm. Cross-sectional images at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm were captured by digital microscopy at a magnification of ×4. The preinstrumentation, the image of one model at levels 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm that was used to compare with their corresponding postinstrumentation using ImageJ software (Image Proplus - version 4.1.0.0) for Windows 95/WT/98.
The canal transportation and centering ratio were measured with the help of the formula proposed by Gambill et al.[13]
Canal transportation = (a1 − a2) − (b1 − b2)
Centering ratio = (a1 − a2)/(b1 − b2)
where a1 is the shortest distance from the mesial edge of the root to the mesial edge of the uninstrumented canal, a2 is the shortest distance from the mesial edge of the root to the mesial edge of the instrumented canal, b1 is the shortest distance from the distal edge of the root to the distal edge of the uninstrumented canal, and b2 is the shortest distance from the distal edge of the root to the distal edge of the instrumented canal.
| Results | | |
The data were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way ANOVA, independent sample t-test, and post hoc tests. In all the analyses, significance level was taken to be 0.05 (P < 0.05) and statistical analysis was carried out using the statistical package, SPSS Statistics (version 21.0).
Canal transportation
Group I caused the least canal transportation at all levels [Graph 1]& [Graph 2]. In Group III, files were found to transport the canal significantly compared with Group I and Group II in the apical levels (3 and 5 mm), P < 0.05. There was no significant difference between Group III and Group II at 7-, 9-, and 11-mm levels.
At all levels, subgroup B of all the three groups caused significant canal transportation (P < 0.05) except at level 9 mm (no significant difference between subgroups in Group I at level 9 mm).
Centering ability
Group I achieved the maximal value of canal centering ability at all levels, followed by Group II and Group III [Graph 3] & [Graph 4]. There was a significant difference between all groups at all levels except at 3 mm (P < 0.05). At 3 mm, there was no significant difference between Groups II and III. At all levels, subgroup A of Group I achieved maximal value of centering ability and it was significant (P < 0.05) except at level 9 mm. At 3-, 5-, and 7-mm levels, there was no significant difference between subgroups in Group II.
| Discussion | | |
Cleaning and shaping is the most important stage in root canal treatment.[14] Instrumentation of curved canals is still challenging with conventional stainless steel files leading to iatrogenic errors such as canal straightening, ledges, and transportation.[15] NiTi files are found to decrease the canal transportation and are said to have the ability to shape the canal into a desired conical form because of its superelastic property, but file breakage was its major problem, especially in curved canals.
Establishing a “glide path” is a step carried out to create a smooth tunnel-like preparation, from the orifice of the canal to the terminus of the root, prior to the introduction of shaping instruments and is said to be a critical step in preventing premature file fracture.[5]
Two important parameters that affect canal-centering ability are alloy used in manufacturing instruments and instrument design (cross-section, taper, and tip).[4] Studies have concluded that Ni-Ti instruments show better canal-centering ability than stainless steel instruments.[16],[17]
Various methods are available to study the efficiency of preparing a root canal and also to compare the shape of the canal before and after instrumentation. The methods used for comparative analysis were radiography, scanning electron microscopy, photographic assessment, and computer manipulation.[18],[19],[20],[21]
Single mandibular first molar with mesiobuccal canal having a curvature of 35° in the mesiodistal direction was selected and decoronated at the CEJ, and 49 3D printed models were printed for this study. Curved canals were chosen as they present instrumentation with greater challenges. Five levels were chosen: 3, 5, 7, 9, and 11 mm from the root apex. These represent the apical, middle, and coronal thirds of root canals where there are usually curvatures with high vulnerability to iatrogenic mishaps. The mesiobuccal root of the mandibular first molar was used because they are most frequently curved.
The curvatures of the sample were measured with the help of Schneider's technique. According to this technique, canal curvatures are categorized as the straight canal (5° or less), the moderately curved canal (10°–20°), or the severely curved canal (>20°).[22]
Resin models are printed from a single mandibular first molar because they allow standardization of canal curvature in three dimensions.[23]
ProGlider and WaveOne Gold Glider were selected as the glide path files as both have a similar tip diameter (0.15 and 0.16).
In the present study, the WaveOne Gold file system achieved the least value of canal transportation at all levels, and it was maximum at all the levels for NiTi Flex K-files (hand) system followed by ProTaper Gold rotary file system except at 11 mm. At this level, ProTaper Gold rotary file system had a higher value, but there was no significant difference between ProTaper Gold rotary file system and the NiTi Flex K-file (hand) system. The manual instrumentation may be the cause of its highest degree of transportation and decreased centering ability of NiTi Flex hand files.[24] The transportation by ProTaper Gold can be attributed to the design of ProTaper, which includes progressive taper along its surface; convex core mass causes a reduction in instrument flexibility and increased tip stiffness of the file.[4] Yoo and Cho also reported that the reciprocating method preserves the original canal shape better than the continuous rotation system.[25]
The use of glide path files reduced the degree of canal transportation in the apical and middle one-third. Hartmann et al. concluded that preparing a glide path with engine-driven sequences is linked with equivalent or reduced apical transportation and/or loss of canal-centering ability compared to manual preparation.[26]
In this study, WaveOne Gold Glider caused the least canal transportation, followed by ProGlider and 10-K stainless steel file. This might be due to better flexibility and the reciprocating motion of the WaveOne Gold Glider.[8]
WaveOne Gold file system achieved maximal value of canal-centering ability at all levels, followed by ProTaper Gold rotary file system and NiTi Flex K-file system. At the apical 3 mm level, there was no significant difference between the ProTaper Gold file system and the NiTi Flex K-file system. One of the characteristic features of reciprocating motion, which was proposed specifically to reduce the risk of root canal deformity, is increased canal-centering ability.[27] The two different cross-sections along the length of the active portion of WaveOne is the reason for decreased core diameter leading to the increased flexibility of the file. These features might be the reasons for the better canal-centering ability of the WaveOne file system.
| Conclusions | | |
Within the limitations of this study, it was found that all three file systems caused canal transportation to some extent, but the use of glide path files reduced canal transportation and improved canal-centering ability for all file systems.
WaveOne Gold single-file reciprocation has better centering ability and lesser canal transportation than ProTaper Gold and NiTi Flex K-file at all levels when used with and without glide path preparation in root canals with severe curvature.
Glide path creation using WaveOne Gold Glider, ProGlider, and 10 size K-file prior to the use of WaveOne Gold, ProTaper Gold, and NiTi Flex K-file, respectively, reduced the canal transportation and improved canal-centering ability at all levels.
WaveOne Gold Glider followed by WaveOne Gold single-file reciprocation caused the least canal transportation and improved canal-centering ability.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
| References | | |
| 1. | Lim TS, Wee TY, Choi MY, Koh WC, Sae-Lim V. Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde File Prep in smear layer removal. Int Endod J 2003;36:336-43.  |
| 2. | de Alencar AH, Dummer PM, Oliveira HC, Pécora JD, Estrela C. Procedural errors during root canal preparation using rotary NiTi instruments detected by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Braz Dent J 2010;21:543-9. |
| 3. | Estrela C, Holland R, Estrela CR, Alencar AH, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD. Characterization of successful root canal treatment. Braz Dent J 2014;25:3-11. |
| 4. | Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, Pradeep G. Canal-centering ability: An endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent 2009;12:3-9. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 5. | West JD. The endodontic Glidepath: “Secret to rotary safety”. Dent Today 2010;29:86-93. |
| 6. | Patiño PV, Biedma BM, Liébana CR, Cantatore G, Bahillo JG. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod 2005;31:114-6. |
| 7. | Berutti E, Negro AR, Lendini M, Pasqualini D. Influence of manual preflaring and torque on the failure rate of ProTaper rotary instruments. J Endod 2004;30:228-30. |
| 8. | Vorster M, van der Vyver PJ, Paleker F. Canal transportation and centering ability of WaveOne gold in combination with and without different glide path techniques. J Endod 2018;44:1430-5. |
| 9. | Zheng L, Ji X, Li C, Zuo L, Wei X. Comparison of glide paths created with K-files, PathFiles, and the ProGlider file, and their effects on subsequent WaveOne preparation in curved canals. BMC Oral Health 2018;18:152. |
| 10. | Ba-Hattab R, Pröhl AK, Lang H, Pahncke D. Comparison of the shaping ability of GT® Series X, Twisted Files and AlphaKite rotary nickel-titanium systems in simulated canals. BMC Oral Health 2013;13:72. |
| 11. | Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006;39:196-202. |
| 12. | Balani P, Niazi F, Rashid H. A brief review of the methods used to determine the curvature of root canals. J Res Dent 2013;3:57-63. |
| 13. | 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. |
| 14. | Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: A review. J Endod 2004;30:559-67. |
| 15. | Schäfer T, Dammaschke T. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Top 2006;15:75-90. |
| 16. | Gundappa M, Bansal R, Khoriya S, Mohan R. Root canal centering ability of rotary cutting nickel titanium instruments: A meta-analysis. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:504-9. [Full text] |
| 17. | Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995;21:146-51. |
| 18. | Kum KY, Spängberg L, Cha BY, Il-Young J, Msd, Seung-Jong L, et al. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000;26:719-23. |
| 19. | Nagaraja S, Sreenivasa Murthy BV. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010;13:16-22. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 20. | López FU, Travessas JA, Fachin E, Fontanella V, Grecca F. Apical transportation: Two assessment methods. Aust Endod J 2009;35:85-8. |
| 21. | Maitin N, Arunagiri D, Brave D, Maitin SN, Kaushik S, Roy S. An ex vivo comparative analysis on shaping ability of four NiTi rotary endodontic instruments using spiral computed tomography. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:219-23. [ PUBMED] [Full text] |
| 22. | Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Critical evaluation of root canal transportation by instrumentation. Endod Top 2013; 29:12043. |
| 23. | Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: Shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top 2005;10:30-76. |
| 24. | Peralta-Mamani M, Rios D, Duarte MA, Santiago JF Jr., Honório HM. Manual vs. rotary instrumentation in endodontic treatment of permanent teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Dent 2019;32:311-24. |
| 25. | Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012;37:220-7. |
| 26. | Hartmann RC, Peters OA, de Figueiredo JA, Rossi-Fedele G. Association of manual or engine-driven glide path preparation with canal centring and apical transportation: A systematic review. Int Endod J 2018;51:1239-52. |
| 27. | Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC, Min KS. Comparison of the centering ability of WaveOne and Reciproc nickel–titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38:21-5. |
Correspondence Address:
Dr. M Sruthi Sunildath
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Annoor Dental College and Hospital, Puthuppady P. O, Muvattupuzha, Ernakulam - 686 673, Kerala
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_200_21
[Figure 1], [Figure 2] |
|
| This article has been cited by | | 1 |
Comparative evaluation of canal transportation and canal centering ability in oval canals with newer nickel–titanium rotary single file systems – A cone-beam computed tomography study |
|
| SimarKaur Manocha, SuparnaGanguly Saha, RollyS Agarwal, Neelam Vijaywargiya, MainakKanti Saha, Anjali Surana | | Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2023; 26(3): 326 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | | | 2 |
Shaping ability of modern Nickel–Titanium rotary systems on the preparation of printed mandibular molars |
|
| Seda Falakaloglu, Emmanuel Silva, Burcu Topal, Emre Iriboz, Mustafa Gündogar | | Journal of Conservative Dentistry. 2022; 25(5): 498 | | [Pubmed] | [DOI] | |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 1956 | | | Printed | 72 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 74 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 2 | | |
|
|
