A study on transportation of apical foramen after overinstrumentation by ProFile®, ProTaper™ and K^3TM in simulated canals with different curvatures

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2007;32(2):87-94

Publication date (electronic) : 2007 March 31

doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.2.087

Hyun Yang ¹, In-Seok Yang ¹, Yun-Chann Hwang ¹, In-Nam Hwang ¹, Suk-Ja Yoon ², Won-Jae Kim ³, Won-Mann Oh ¹

¹Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.

²Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.

³Department of Oral Physiology, DSRI, 2nd stage of BK21, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, Korea.

Corresponding Author: Won-Mann Oh. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Chonnam National University, 8 Hak-dong, Dong-gu, Gwangju, 501-757, Korea. Tel: 82-62-220-4431, Fax: 82-62-225-8387, wmoh@chonnam.ac.kr

Received 2006 February 20; Revised 2006 March 30; Accepted 2007 April 25.

Abstract

This study was done to evaluate transportation of the apical foramen after 0.5 mm overinstrumentation by ProFile, ProTaper and K³ in simulated resin root canal.

Sixty simulated resin root canal with a curvature of J and S-shape were divided into two groups. Each group consisted of three subgroups with 10 blocks according to the instruments used: ProFile®, ProTaper™, and K^3TM. Simulated resin root canal was prepared by ProFile, ProTaper and K³ with 300 rpm by the crown-down preparation technique. Pre- and post-instrumentation apical foramen images were overlapped and recorded with Image-analyzing microscope 100X (Camcope, Sometech Inc, Korea). The amounts of difference in width and dimension on overlapped images were measured after reference points were determined by Image Analysis program (Image-Pro® Express, Media Cybernetic, USA). Data were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U-test.

The results suggest that ProFile showed significantly less canal transportation and maintained original apical foramen shape better than K³ and ProTaper.

Keywords: ProFile; ProTaper; K3; Simulated J and S-shape canal

References

1. Schilder H. Filling root canals in three dimensionss. Dent Clin North Am 1967. 723–744.

2. Zmener O, Balbachan L. Effectiveness of nickel-titanium files for preparing curved root canals. Endod Dent Traumatol 1995. 11121–123.

3. Weine FS. Endodontic therapy 1989. 4th edth ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 277.

4. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988. 14346–351.

5. Baumann MA. Nickel-titanium: options and challenges. Dent Clin North Am 2004. 4855–67.

6. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod 1995. 21173–176.

7. Park HS, Lee MG, Kim JJ, Lee JY. In the formation of curved root canals using ProFile Study on root canal shape. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 1999. 24633–637.

8. Ko HJ, Baek SH. A study of histomorphological change of curved root canal preparation using GT rotary file, profile and stainless steel K-file. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2002. 27612–621.

9. Koch K, Brave D. The Ultimate Rotary File? Oral Health 2002. 59–64.

10. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975. 1255–262.

11. Hsu YY, Kim SK. The ProFile system. Dent Clin North Am 2004. 4869–85.

12. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am 2004. 4887–111.

13. Mounce RE. The K3 rotary nickel-titanium file system. Dent Clin North Am 2004. 48137–157.

14. Bishop K, Dummer PMH. A comparison of stainless steel flexofiles and Nickel-titanium Ni-Ti flex during the shaping of simulated canals. Int Endod J 1997. 3025–34.

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

16. Song YL, Bian Z, Fan B, Fan MW, Gutmann JL, Peng B. A comparison of instrument-centering ability within the root canal for three contemporary instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2004. 37265–271.

17. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation tecniques. J Endod 1997. 23503–507.

18. Hata GI, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod 2002. 28316–321.

19. Lim JJ, Kim DJ, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Oh WM. The change of canal configuration after instrumentation by several nickel-titanium files in the simulated canal with abrupt curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30303–311.

20. Yun HY, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003. 95228–233.

21. Walsch H. The hybride concept of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Am 2004. 48183–202.

22. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schönenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J 2003. 3686–92.

23. Oh HJ, Hong CH, Jo YB. The effect of niti rotary instrumentation on the configuration of apical root canal. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 1997. 22244–253.

24. Lee BK, Kim DJ, Hwang YC, Hwang IN, Oh WM. A comparative study on the canal configuration after shaping by profile, protaper^tm and k-flexofile in simulated canals with different angles of curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2005. 30294–302.

25. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 2004. 37613–623.

26. Iqbal MK, Firic S, Tulcan J, Karabucak B, Kim S. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004. 37359–364.

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

A and B diagrams indicate inner and outer side of canal curvature.

Figure 2

Procedure measuring the difference in width and dimensions of apical foramen. A. Measurement of difference in width of apical foramen after overlapping pre- and post-instrumentation images. (L1; Δ mesial width, L2; Δ outer width, L3; Δ distal width, L4; Δ inner width) B. Measurement of difference in dimensions of apical foramen after overlapping pre- and post-instrumentation images. (a; inner dimensions of apical foramen before instrumentation, b; outer dimensions of apical foramen before instrumentation, c; inner dimensions of apical foramen after instrumentation, d; outer dimensions of apical foramen after instrumentation)

Figure 3

ΔOuter width of apical foramen between pre- and post-instrumentation according to the types of files and curvatures.

Figure 4

ΔInner width of apical foramen between pre- and post-instrumentation according to the types of files and curvatures.

Figure 5

ΔOuter dimensions of apical foramen between pre- and post-instrumentation according to the types of files and curvatures.

Figure 6

ΔInner dimensions of apical foramen between pre- and post-instrumentation according to the types of files and curvatures.

Table 1

Shaping sequence of ProFile, ProTaper and K3

WL (Working length) = CL (Canal length) + 0.5 mm

Table 2

Mean values of difference of outer, inner width and dimensions in apical foramen (Mean ± S.D)

Other letters mean significant difference (p < 0.05).