Search

Aim: To compare microcrack formation in roots of extracted teeth after the shaping of straight and curved root canals with hand, rotary and reciprocating files using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) analysis., Methodology: Thirty straight mandibular incisors and 30 severely curved mesial roots of mandibular molars were randomly divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 10) according to the systems used for the root canal preparation and the root canal curvature: ProTaper Universal for Hand Use (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), HyFlex EDM (Coltene-Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland) and Reciproc Blue (VDW, Munich, Germany) files used in mandibular incisors (straight canals) and mesial roots of mandibular molars (curved canals). The roots were imaged with micro-CT scanning at an isotropic resolution of 14 μm before and after root canal preparation, and the cross-sectional images generated were assessed to detect microcracks., Results: All dentinal defects identified after root canal preparation were already present before instrumentation, and no new microcracks were detected. Dentinal microcracks were present in 19% (ProTaper Universal for Hand Use), 11% (Hyflex EDM) and 23% (Reciproc Blue) of the cross-sections when the instrumentation was performed in mandibular incisors. Instrumentation of mandibular molars revealed microcracks in 15% (ProTaper Universal for Hand Use), 16% (Hyflex EDM) and 17% (Reciproc Blue) of the cross-sections., Conclusions: Preparation of straight and curved root canals with ProTaper Universal for Hand Use, HyFlex EDM and Reciproc Blue systems did not produce microcracks in extracted teeth when evaluated with micro-CT., (© 2021 International Endodontic Journal. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Introduction: This study aimed to compare apical microcrack formation after root canal shaping by hand, rotary, and reciprocating files at different working lengths using micro-computed tomographic analysis., Methods: Sixty mandibular incisors were randomly divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 10) according to the systems and working lengths used for the root canal preparation: ProTaper Universal for Hand Use (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), HyFlex CM (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) files working at the apical foramen (AF) and 1 mm short of the AF (AF - 1 mm). The teeth were imaged with micro-computed tomographic scanning at an isotropic resolution of 14 μm before and after root canal preparation, and the cross-sectional images generated were assessed to detect microcracks in the apical portion of the roots., Results: Overall, 17 (28.3%) specimens presented microcracks before instrumentation. Apical microcracks were present in 1 (ProTaper Universal for Hand Use), 3 (Hyflex CM), and 2 (Reciproc) specimens when the instrumentation terminated at the AF. When instrumentation was terminated at AF - 1 mm, apical microcracks were detected in 3 (ProTaper Universal for Hand Use) and 4 (Hyflex CM and Reciproc) specimens. All these microcracks detected after root canal preparation were already present before instrumentation, and no new apical microcrack was visualized. For all groups, the number of slices presenting microcracks after root canal preparation was the same as before canal preparation., Conclusions: Root canal shaping with ProTaper Universal for Hand Use, HyFlex CM, and Reciproc systems, regardless of the working length, did not produce apical microcracks., (Copyright © 2017 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of the Nd:YAG laser, ultrasound, the ProTaper Universal system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and the CanalBrush (Coltene Whaledent, Langenau, Germany) methods for the removal of the smear layer from the apical third of root canals., Methods: Fifty distal root canals from extracted human mandibular first molars were instrumented up to ProTaper Universal F5 and divided randomly into 5 groups (n = 10) according to the following final irrigation agitation techniques: no agitation (control), ProTaper Universal file, ultrasound, CanalBrush, and Nd:YAG laser. Specimens were observed under a scanning electron microscope. The presence of the smear layer was evaluated using a 3-grade scoring system. The data were analyzed with Cohen kappa, Kruskal-Wallis, and Mann-Whitney U tests. A level of significance of .05 was adopted., Results: The ultrasound group performed significantly better than the rest of the groups; 56.6% of the specimens revealed no smear layer, 44.4% showed the presence of a moderate smear layer, and no heavy smear layers were observed. In the Nd:YAG laser group, 30% of the specimens presented with no smear layer, 70% showed the presence of a moderate smear layer, and no heavy smear layers were observed. In contrast, a heavy smear layer was observed on the surfaces of the root canals in the CanalBrush (23.4%), ProTaper Universal (13.4%), and control (86.6%) groups. Statistically significant differences were observed (P < .05)., Conclusions: None of the agitation methods completely removed the smear layer. However, the ultrasound method performed significantly better followed by the Nd:YAG laser, the CanalBrush, and the ProTaper Universal system. Agitation of the irrigant improved smear layer removal in the apical third of the canal., (Copyright © 2015 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the centring ability of the ProTaper™ and ProTaper Universal™ rotary systems for preparing curved root canals, by means of preoperative and postoperative imaging of a cross-section of their coronal, middle and apical thirds. Twenty mesiobuccal root canals of human mandibular first molars with a degree of curvature ranging from 55° to 60° were randomly divided into two groups of 10 specimens each: Group 1, ProTaper™ rotary system; and Group 2, ProTaper Universal™ rotary system. The data were analysed statistically by Kruskal-Wallis and Student's t-test at the 5% significance level. The results showed that the differences between the percentages of the presence of deviation observed were not statistically significant. Both systems showed the capacity for producing centred preparations in curved root canals with low proportions of deviation., (© 2010 The Authors. Australian Endodontic Journal © 2010 Australian Society of Endodontology.)

The aim of the present study was to assess the centreing ability of the ProTaper Universal rotary system in curved roots in comparison to Nitiflex files, by means of preoperative and postoperative imaging of a cross-section of the apical third. Twenty mesiobuccal canals of human first mandibular molars with a degree of curvature ranging from 35 degrees to 60 degrees were divided into two groups of 10 specimens each: group 1, ProTaper Universal rotary system; group 2 (control), Nitiflex files. All instruments produced morphological alterations. The Student's t-test and Kruskal-Wallis test showed that the differences were not statistically significant, except for the specimens instrumented by Nitiflex file #30. The ProTaper Universal showed the capacity for producing centered preparations in curved and thin root canals with low proportions of apical deviation.

Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the instrumented walls of root canals prepared with the ProTaper Universal rotary system., Material and Methods: Twenty mesiobuccal canals of human first mandibular molars were divided into 2 groups of 10 specimens each and embedded in a muffle system. The root canals were transversely sectioned 3 mm short of the apex before preparation and remounted in their molds. All root canals were prepared with ProTaper Universal rotary system or with Nitiflex files. The pre and postoperative images of the apical thirds viewed with a stereoscopic magnifier (X45) were captured digitally for further analysis. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test at 5% significance level., Results: The differences observed between the instrumented and the noninstrumented walls were not statistically significant (p<0.05)., Conclusions: The Nitiflex files and the ProTaper Universal rotary system failed to instrument all the root canal walls.

Objective: The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate the antimicrobial activity of 0.5%, 1% and 2.5% sodium hypochlorite in root canals instrumented with the ProTaper Universal system., Study Design: Fifty human mandibular premolar teeth with single root canals were infected with a mixture of C. albicans, P. aeruginosa, E. faecalis, and S. aureus. The specimens were randomly divided into 5 groups with 10 root canals each according to the irrigant used: group 1: 0.5% NaOCl; group 2: 1% NaOCl; group 3: 2.5% NaOCl; group 4 (positive control): 0.85% sterile saline solution; group 5 (negative control, without microorganisms): 0.85% sterile saline solution. All root canals were instrumented with the ProTaper Universal system. The assessment of the antimicrobial action of the irrigant was performed before the biomechanical preparation (0), and after instrumentation with S1 (1), S2 (2), F1 (3), F2 (4), and F3 (5) files., Results: All positive control samples showed microbial growth, whereas negative control samples showed no microbial growth before the biomechanical preparation and after the instrumentation with S1, S2, F1, F2, and F3 files. The microorganisms were eliminated after the instrumentation with S1 file in all tested irrigants, except for 1 sample in S1 at 0.5% NaOCl which showed positive growth. There was no significant statistical difference (P = 1.000) among the tested irrigants., Conclusion: Sodium hypochlorite, at all tested concentrations, was effective in eliminating C. albicans, P. aeruginosa, E. faecalis, and S. aureus in combination with the NiTi rotary instrumentation with the ProTaper Universal system.

This study evaluated, by means of the radiography examination, the occurrence of deviations in the apical third of root canals shaped with hand and rotary instruments. Sixty mandibular human molars were divided into three groups. The root canals in group 1 were instrumented with ProTaper (Dentsply/Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) for hand use, group 2 with ProTaper and group 3 with RaCe. The images obtained by double superimposition of the pre- and postoperative radiographs were evaluated by two endodontists with the aid of a magnifier-viewer and a fivefold magnifier. Statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher-Freeman-Halton. The instrumentation using the ProTaper for hand use showed 25% of the canals with a deviation in the apical third, as did the ProTaper, while the corresponding figure for the RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La-Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) was 20%, but these results were not statistically significant. There was no correlation between the occurrence of deviations in the apical third and the systems used.

Different HERO rotary systems were evaluated by pre- and postoperative images of a cross-section of their mesiobuccal root thirds with a stereoscopic magnifier (45x). Fifty mesiobuccal canals of human mandibular first molars were divided into five groups: 1--HERO 642; 2--HERO 642 and HERO Apical; 3--HERO Shaper; 4--HERO Shaper and HERO Apical; 5--NitiFlex files. The perimeter of the canal was calculated using Image Tool software (UTHSCA). Final, post-instrumentation perimeters were compared by Kruskal-Wallis test (P = 0.05). The distribution of the values of the final canal perimeter for each instrumentation method was not statistically significant in any of the thirds (P = 0.174, cervical third; P = 0.874, middle third; and P = 0.631, apical third). An increase in canal perimeter was observed in all groups. In the cervical third the greatest increase was Group 5; in the middle third, Group 4, and in the apical third, Group 2.

The aim of the present study was to assess the risk of deviation of the root canals prepared by 3 HERO rotary systems, used solely or in association, by means of preoperative and postoperative imaging of a cross-section of their coronal, middle, and apical thirds. Fifty mesiobuccal canals of human first molars were randomly divided into 5 groups of 10 specimens each: group A, HERO 642; group B, HERO 642 + HERO Apical; group C, HERO Shaper; group D, HERO Shaper + HERO Apical; group E (control), NitiFlex files. Fisher exact test showed that the differences between the percentages of the presence of deviation and the differences observed between the proportions of instrumented and noninstrumented walls were not statistically significant. No system presented absolute effectiveness, because each of them produced morphologic changes and failed to instrument all the walls of the root canals. A level of significance of .05 was adopted.