The effect of different flute design and torque-controlled motor on the shaping ability of simulated resin root canals

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2005;30(6):486-492

Publication date (electronic) : 2005 November 30

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.6.486

Hyoung-Mee Roh , Bock Huh , Hyeon-Cheol Kim , Jeong-Kil Park

Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Jeong-Kil Park. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University, 1-10, Ami-dong, Seo-gu, 602-739, Busan, Korea, 602-739. Tel: 82-51-240-7454, jeongkil@pusan.ac.kr

Received 2005 July 21; Revised 2005 October 12; Accepted 2005 October 13.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the two different Ni-Ti file systems and the two different engine systems in simulated canals.

A total of four groups of each 10 were tested. Each group was instrumented with HeroShaper®and Endo-Mate2® (Group HE), HeroShaper® and Tecnika® (Group HT), ProFile® and Endo-Mate2® (Group PE), and ProFile® and Tecnika® (Group PT).

Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of increased width and centering ratio were measured and calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5 mm levels.

These data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test

The results of this study were as follows;

1. Canal preparation time of HT group was the shortest (p < 0.05).

2. The amount of increased canal width in HE group was significantly larger than PT group at apical 1 mm level (p < 0.05). At apical 3 mm level, PT group was significantly smaller than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, PE group was significantly larger than PT group (p < 0.05).

3. The amount of centering ratio in HE group was significantly larger than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, HT group was significantly larger than PE group and PT group (p < 0.05).

Under the condition of this study, torque-controlled endodontic motor is safer than no torque controlled motor, especially when the active file is used.

Keywords: Centering ratio; Ni-Ti file; Shaping ability; Torque-controlled endodontic motor

References

1. Gambarini G. Rationale for the use of low torque endodontic motors in root canal instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol 2000. 1695–100.

2. Morgan LF, Montgomery S. An evaluation of the crown-down pressureless technique. J Endod 1984. 10491–498.

3. Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Effect of early coronal flaring on working length change in curved canals using rotary nickel-titanium versus stainless steel instruments. J Endod 2002. 28438–442.

4. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod 2000. 26161–165.

5. Suffridge CB, Hartwell GR, Walker TL. Cleaning efficiency of Nickel-Titanium GT and .04 Rotary Files when used in a torque-controlled rotary handpiece. J Endod 2003. 29346–348.

6. Haikel Y, Gasser P, Allemann C. Dynamic fracture of hybrid endodontic hand instruments compared with traditional files. J Endod 1991. 17217–220.

7. Wildey WL, Senia ES, Montgomery S. Another look at root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992. 74499–507.

8. Bahcall JK, Barss JT. Understanding and evaluating the endodontic file. Gen Dent 2000. 48690–692.

9. Averbach RE, Kleier DJ. Endodontics in the 21st century: the rotary revolution. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2001. 2227–34.

10. Camps JJ, Pertot WJ. Torsional and stiffness properties of nickel-titanium K files. Int Endod J 1995. 28239–243.

11. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preperations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971. 32271–275.

12. Kuhn WG, Carnes DL Jr, Clement DJ, Walker WA 3rd. Effect of tip design of nickel-titanium and stainless steel files on root canal preperation. J Endod 1997. 23735–738.

13. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod 1988. 14273–277.

14. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1999. 25441–445.

15. Buchanan LS. The standardized-taper root canal preperation-Part 1. Concepts for variably tapered shaping instruments. Int Endod J 2000. 33516–529.

16. Coleman Cl, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod 1997. 23232–235.

17. Blum JY, Machtou P, Micallef JP. Location of contact areas on rotary Profile instruments in relationship to the forces developed during mechanical preperation on extracted teeth. Int Endod J 1999. 32108–114.

18. Yared G, Kulkarni GK. Accuracy of the DTC torque control motor for nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004. 37399–402.

19. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparision of root canal preperation using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995. 21146–151.

Article information Continued

(open-access) :

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Figure 1

Determination of the enlarged canal shape at three levels.

Figure 2

This drawing represents a measuring method. X1 represents the maximum extent of canal movements in one direction and X2 is the movement in the opposite direction. Y is the diameter of the final canal preparation.