Warning: mkdir(): Permission denied in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 81

Warning: fopen(upload/ip_log/ip_log_2024-12.txt): failed to open stream: No such file or directory in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 83

Warning: fwrite() expects parameter 1 to be resource, boolean given in /home/virtual/lib/view_data.php on line 84
A comparison of master apical file size according to instrumentation in type II root canal

A comparison of master apical file size according to instrumentation in type II root canal

Article information

Restor Dent Endod. 2008;33(5):435-442
Publication date (electronic) : 2008 September 30
doi : https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.5.435
Department of Conservative Dentistry, Divsion of Dentistry, Graduate School, Chosun University, Korea.
Corresponding Author: Ho-Keel Hwang. Department of Conservative Dentistry, Divsion of Dentistry, Graduate School, Chosun University 421, Seosuk-dong, Gwangju, 501-825, Korea. Tel: 82-62-220-3840, Fax: 82-62-232-9064, rootcanal@hanmail.net
Received 2008 March 14; Revised 2008 April 04; Accepted 2008 September 04.

Abstract

Type II root canal was defined that two canals leave the chamber and merge to form a single canal at short of the apex. The aim of this study was to analyse the master apical file (MAF) size according to various instrumentation techniques in the type II root canal when each canal was enlarged to working length.

Eighty mesial roots of molar with ISO #15 initial apical file (IAF) size in type II root canals were randomly divided into four experimental groups with 20 teeth each. According to enlarging instruments, four groups are: K-FLEXOFILE® (KF), engine-driven Ni-Ti PROTAPER® (PT), HERO Shaper® (HS), K3 ™ (K3). All canals were enlarged to each working length with ISO #30 size: #30 in KF, F3 in PT, .04/30 in HS, and .06/30 in K3. The master apical file (MAF) size was confirmed by tactile sensation and universal testing machine (EZ test, Shimadzu Co., Kyoto, Japan). The mean MAF size was statistically compared using one-way ANOVA and Tukey HSD test at the 0.05 probability level.

These results show that the MAF size was appeared one or two sizes larger than the final enlarging instrument when all canal in type II configuration were enlarged to each working length. Therefore, the clinician have to confirm the apical stop once more after instrumentation of type II root canal.

References

1. Cohen S, Burns R. Pathways of the pulp 1994. 6th edth ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby; 128–178.
2. Lim SS. Clinical Endodontics 1999. 2nd edth ed. Seoul: Uichihaksa; 128–136.
3. Grossman L. Endodontic practice 1985. 10th edth ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 207.
4. Weine FS. Endodontic therapy 1996. 5th edth ed. St. Louis: Mosby Co.; 256–340.
5. Ingle J, Bakland L. Endodontics 1994. 4th edth ed. Philadelphia: Lea & Febiger; 92–227.
6. Weine FS, Killy RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975. 1(8)255–262.
7. Morgan LF, Montgomery S. An evaluation of the crown-down pressureless technique. J Endod 1984. 10(10)491–498.
8. Roane J, Sabala C, Duncanson M. The balanced force concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1985. 11(5)203–211.
9. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988. 14(7)346–351.
10. Vertucci FJ. Root canal anatomy of the human permanent teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1984. 58(5)589–599.
11. Cohen S, Burns R. Pathways of the pulp 2002. 8th edth ed. St. Louis: Mosby Inc.; 710–713.
12. al-Omari MA, Dummer PMH, Newcombe RG. Comparison of six files to prepare simulated root canals. Part 1. Int Endod J 1992. 25(2)57–66.
13. al-Omari MA, Dummer PMH, Newcombe RG. Comparison of six files to prepare simulated root canals. Part 2. Int Endod J 1992. 25(2)67–81.
14. Tharuni SL, Parameswaran E, Spangberg LSW, Sukumaran VG. A comparison of canal preparation using the K-file and Lightspeed in resin blocks. J Endod 1996. 22(9)474–476.
15. Oh HJ, Hong CU, Cho YB. The Effect of NITI Rotary Instrumentation on the Configuration of Apical Root Canal. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 1997. 22(1)244–253.
16. Leeb J. Canal orifice enlargement as related to biomechanical preparation. J Endod 1983. 9(11)463–470.

Article information Continued

Figure 1

The device for taking a standard radiogragh at same position.

Figure 2

The apparatus and EZ test for measuring Newton value when file removed.

Table 1

Group classification according to instruments

Table 1

Table 2

Average size of master apical file in each group

Table 2

KF: K-FLEXOFILE® PT: PROTAPER® HS: HERO Shaper® K3: K3

Table 3

A comparison of master apical file size among each group

Table 3

*:Significantly different at p < 0.05 (one-way ANOVA, Tukey HSD test)

KF: K-FLEXOFILE® PT: PROTAPER® HS: HERO Shaper® K3: K3

Table 4

Average force in each group when master apical file removed

Table 4

KF: K-FLEXOFILE® PT: PROTAPER® HS: HERO Shaper® K3: K3