Apical Transportation of Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars Following Root Canal Preparation with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment
Objectives: This study aimed to compare the transportation of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars following root canal preparation with HyFlex CM (HCM) and Edge Taper Platinum (ETP) rotary systems and stainless steel (SS) hand files using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: This in-vitro study was performed on 48 maxillary molars in three groups of 16. The teeth were mounted in acrylic blocks, and root canals were prepared using HCM in group 1 (up to #30/0.06), ETP in group 2 (up to F3/0.06), and SS hand files in group 3 (up to #30). CBCT scans were taken before and after root canal preparation. The amount of canal transportation was measured at 0, 3, 6, and 9mm from the apex. Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney tests.
Results: The difference in canal transportation at 0 and 6mm from the apex was significant between the HCM and ETP groups (P=0.031 and 0.023) but none of the systems showed any significant difference with hand files at 0- and 6-mm levels (P=0.10, 0.56, 0.22, and 0.50), respectively. At 3mm from the apex, no significant difference was noted among the groups (P=0.30). At the 9-mm level, the amount of canal transportation was not significantly different between HCM and ETP (P=0.83) but they showed significant differences with hand files (P<0.001).
Conclusion: ETP and HCM caused less canal transportation at the curvature of the mesiobuccal canal of maxillary molars compared to hand files. ETP showed superior efficacy in root canal preparation compared to HCM.
2. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974 Apr;18(2):269-96.
3. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of
preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1975 Aug;1(8):255-62.
4. Nagaraja S, Sreenivasa Murthy BV. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: An in vitro study. Conserv Dent. 2010 Jan;13(1):16-22.
5. Nazarimoghadam K, Daryaeian M, Ramazani N. An in vitro comparison of root
canal transportation by reciproc file with and without glide path. J Dent (Tehran). 2014 Sep;11(5):554-9.
6. Özer SY. Comparison of root canal transportation induced by three rotary systems with noncutting tips using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Feb;111(2):244-50.
7. Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Topics. 2006 Nov;15(1):75-90.
8. Vallaeys K, Chevalier V, Arbab-Chirani R. Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni-Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo-S™, assessed by micro-computed tomography. Odontology. 2016 Jan;104(1):83-8.
9. Mantri SP, Kapur R, Gupta NA, Kapur CA. Type III apical transportation of root canal. Contemp Clin Dent. 2012 Jan;3(1):134-6.
10. Pettiette MT, Delano EO, Trope M. Evaluation of success rate of endodontic treatment performed by students with stainless-steel K-files and nickel-titanium hand files. J Endod. 2001 Feb;27(2):124-7.
11. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988 Jul;14(7):346-51.
12. Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod. 2000 Apr;26(4):210-6.
13. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004 Aug;30(8):559-67.
14. Bürklein S, Börjes L, Schäfer E. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with Hyflex CM and Revo-S rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2014 May;47(5):470-6.
15. Thompson M, Sidow SJ, Lindsey K, Chuang A, McPherson JC 3rd. Evaluation of a new filing system's ability to maintain canal morphology. J Endod. 2014 Jun;40(6):867-70.
16. Madani ZS, Goudarzipor D, Haddadi A, Saeidi A, Bijani A. A CBCT Assessment of Apical Transportation in Root Canals Prepared with Hand K-Flexofile and K3 Rotary Instruments. Iran Endod J. 2015 Winter;10(1):44-8.
17. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5.
18. Estrela C, Bueno MR, Sousa-Neto MD, Pécora JD. Method for determination of root curvature radius using cone-beam computed tomography images. Braz Dent J. 2008;19(2):114-8.
19. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996 Jul;22(7):369-75.
20. Haapasalo M1, Shen Y, Qian W, Gao Y. Irrigation in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am. 2010 Apr;54(2):291-312.
21. Sabeti MA, Nekofar M, Motahhary P, Ghandi M, Simon JH. Healing of apical periodontitis after endodontic treatment with and without obturation in dogs. J Endod. 2006 Jul;32(7):628-33.
22. Dowker SE, Davis GR, Elliott JC. X-ray microtomography: nondestructive three-dimensional imaging for in vitro endodontic studies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997 Apr;83(4):510-6.
23. Mokhtari H, Niknami M, Sohrabi A, Habibivand E, Mokhtari Zonouzi HR, et al. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Comparison of Canal Transportation after Preparation with BioRaCe and Mtwo Rotary Instruments and Hand K-Flexofiles. Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):180-4.
24. 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 May;36(5):904-7.
25. Hartmann MS, Barletta FB, Camargo Fontanella VR, Vanni JR. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: a comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod. 2007 Aug;33(8):962-5.
26. Madani ZS, Haddadi A, Haghanifar S, Bijani A. Cone-beam computed tomography for evaluation of apical transportation in root canals prepared by two rotary systems. Iran Endod J. 2014 Spring;9(2):109-12.
27. Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jan;17(1):35-9.
28. Ehsani M, Zahedpasha S, Moghadamnia AA, Mirjani J. An ex-vivo study on the shaping parameters of two nickel-titanium rotary systems compared with hand instruments. Iran Endod J. 2011 Spring;6(2):74-9.
29. Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod. 2006 May;32(5):417-20.
30. Kumar BS, Pattanshetty S, Prasad M, Soni S, Pattanshetty KS, Prasad S. An in-vitro Evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of two rotary Nickel Titanium systems (Twisted Files and Hyflex files) with conventional stainless Steel hand K-flexofiles by using Spiral Computed Tomography. J Int Oral Health. 2013 Oct;5(5):108-15.
31. Zhao D, Shen Y, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM, Twisted Files, and K3 instruments. J Endod. 2013 Mar;39(3):385-8.
|Issue||Vol 16, No 4 (2019)|
|Root Canal Preparations Dental Instruments Stainless Steel Maxilla Molars Cone-Beam Computed Tomography|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|