From 2011-2016, images and videos of "The Root Canal Anatomy Project" were developed at the Laboratory of Endodontics of Ribeirao Preto Dental School. From 2016, images were acquired in other educational institutions. They can be freely used for attributed noncommercial educational purposes by educators, scholars, student and clinicians. It means that all material used should include proper attribution and citation (http://rootcanalanatomy.blogspot.com). In such cases, this information should be linked to the image in a manner compatible with such instructional objectives. Unfortunately, because material shared on the RCAP has not been properly cited by several users, from November 2019 a watermark was added to the images and videos. Enjoy!

August 10, 2013

JOE Publication


Abstract 
Introduction
The newly developed single-file systems claimed to be able to prepare the root canal space with only 1 instrument. The present study was designed to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the preparation of oval-shaped root canals using single- or multiple-file systems.

Methods
Seventy-two single-rooted mandibular canines were matched based on similar morphologic dimensions of the root canal achieved in a micro–computed tomographic evaluation and assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups (n = 18) according to the preparation technique (ie, Self-Adjusting File [ReDent-Nova, Ra’anana, Israel], WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland], Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany], and ProTaper Universal [Dentsply Maillefer] systems). Changes in the 2- and 3-dimensional geometric parameters were compared with preoperative values using analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test between groups and the paired sample t test within groups (α = 0.05).

Results
Preparation significantly increased the analyzed parameters; the outline of the canals was larger and showed a smooth taper in all groups. Untouched areas occurred mainly on the lingual side of the middle third of the canal. Overall, a comparison between groups revealed that SAF presented the lowest, whereas WaveOne and ProTaper Universal showed the highest mean increase in most of the analyzed parameters (P < .05).

Conclusions
All systems performed similarly in terms of the amount of touched dentin walls. Neither technique was capable of completely preparing the oval-shaped root canals.

Key Words: Micro–computed tomography, nickel-titanium instruments, reciprocating motion, root canal preparation, self-adjusting file


Posted by at
Labels:

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)