This study compared the buckling resistance of 3 nickel-titanium (NiTi) retreatment file systems and the torque/force generated during retreatment.
The buckling resistance was compared among the D-RaCe (DR2), HyFlex Remover, and Mtwo R25/05 retreatment systems. J-shaped canals within resin blocks were prepared with ProTaper NEXT X3 and obturated by the single-cone technique with AH Plus. After 4 weeks, 4 mm of gutta-percha in the coronal aspect was removed with Gates-Glidden drills. Retreatment was then performed using DR1 (size 30, 10% taper) followed by DR2 (size 25, 4% taper), HyFlex Remover (size 30, 7% taper), or Mtrwo R25/05 (size 25, 5% taper) (15 specimens in each group). Further apical preparation was performed with WaveOne Gold Primary. The clockwise torque and upward force generated during retreatment were recorded. After retreatment, resin blocks were examined using stereomicroscopy, and the percentage of residual filling material in the canal area was calculated. Data were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey test.
The HyFlex Remover files exhibited the greatest buckling resistance (
NiTi retreatment instruments with higher buckling resistance generated greater clockwise torque and upward force.
The purpose of this study was to investigate the screw-in effect and torque generation depending on the size of glide path during root canal preparation.
Forty Endo-Training Blocks (REF A 0177, Dentsply Maillefer) were used. They were divided into 4 groups. For groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, the glide path was established with ISO #13 Path File (Dentsply Maillefer), #15 NiTi K-file NITIFLEX (Dentsply Maillefer), modified #16 Path File (equivalent to #18), and #20 NiTi K-file NITIFLEX, respectively. The screw-in force and resultant torque were measured using a custom-made experimental apparatus while canals were instrumented with ProTaper S1 (Dentsply Maillefer) at a constant speed of 300 rpm with an automated pecking motion. A statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance and the Duncan
Group 4 showed lowest screw-in effect (2.796 ± 0.134) among the groups (
The establishment of a larger glide path before NiTi rotary instrumentation appears to be appropriate for safely shaping the canal. It is recommended to establish #20 glide path with NiTi file when using ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments system safely.
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.