So-Youn Kim; Jeong-Kil Park; Bock Hur; Hyeon-Cheol Kim

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.1.058

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Restor Dent Endod > Volume 30(1); 2005 > Article

Original Article A comparison of shaping ability of the three ProTaper® instrumentation techniques in simulated canals: So-Youn Kim, Jeong-Kil Park, Bock Hur, Hyeon-Cheol Kim; Journal of Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry 2005;30(1):58-65.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.1.058
Published online: January 31, 2005

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

Corresponding author: Hyeon-Cheol Kim. Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University, 1-10 Ami-dong, Seo-gu, Busan, 602-739, Korea. Tel: 82-51-240-7978, golddent@pusan.ac.kr

• Received: December 24, 2004 • Accepted: December 30, 2004

18 Views
0 Download

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract
REFERENCES

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the three ProTaper® instrumentation techniques in simulated canals.

Thirty resin blocks were divided into 3 groups with 10 canals each. Each group was instrumented with manual ProTaper® (Group M), rotary ProTaper® (Group R), and hybrid technique (Group H). Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of canal deviation, total canal width, inner canal width, outer canal width and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mm levels.

1. Canal preparation time was the shortest in R group (p < 0.05).

2. The amounts of total canal width in R group was generally larger than the other groups, but no significant differences were observed except at the 1, 3 mm levels (p > 0.05).

3. The amounts of inner canal width in R group was larger than M group at the 1 mm level and H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05). The amounts of outer canal width in R group was larger than H group only at the 1 mm level (p < 0.05).

4. The direction of canal deviation in H, R group at the 1, 2, 3 mm levels was outward and that in M group at the 1, 2 mm levels was inward. The amounts of canal deviation in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05).

5. The amounts of centering ratio in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05).
Keywords: Shaping ability; ProTaper®; Hybrid technique; Centering ratio

REFERENCES

1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974;18(2):269-296.Article PubMed
2. Weine F, Kelly R, Lio P. The effect of preparation procedures on the original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1975;1: 255-262.PubMed
3. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988;14: 346-351.Article PubMed
4. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with Nickel-Titanium and Stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 1995;21: 173-176.Article PubMed
5. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1995;21: 146-151.Article PubMed
6. Ruddle CJ. The ProTaper endodontic system: geometries, features, and guidelines for use. Dent Today. 2001;20: 60-67.
7. Walsch H. The hybrid concept of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48: 183-202.PubMed
8. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am. 2004;48: 87-111.Article PubMed
9. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32: 271-275.Article PubMed
10. Kuhn WG, Carnes DL Jr, Clement DJ, Walker WA III. Effect of tip design of nickel-titanium and stainless steel files on root canal preparation. J Endod. 1997;23: 735-738.Article PubMed
11. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod. 1988;14: 273-277.Article PubMed
12. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1999;25: 441-445.Article PubMed
13. Buchanan LS. The standardized-taper root canal preparation-Part 1. Concepts for variably tapered shaping instruments. Int Endod J. 2000;33: 516-529.Article PubMed
14. Coleman CL, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod. 1997;23: 232-235.Article PubMed
15. 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;37: 359-364.Article PubMed
16. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Truitt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod. 2004;30: 234-237.Article PubMed
17. Schafer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod. 2004;30: 432-435.Article PubMed
18. 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;37: 613-623.Article PubMed
19. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003;36: 288-295.Article PubMed PDF
20. Peters OA, Schnenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J. 2003;36: 86-92.Article PubMed PDF
21. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2004;37: 229-238.Article PubMed
22. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 2001;14: 324-333.PubMed
23. Yun HH, 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;95: 228-233.Article PubMed
24. Lee CH, Cho KM, Hong CU. Effect of various canal preparation techniques using rotary nickel-titanium files on the maintenance of canal curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003;28: 41-49.Article
25. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod. 2003;29: 15-19.Article PubMed

Figure 1

Determination of the resulting canal shape at six 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.

Table 1

Classification of groups

Table 2

Preparation sequence

Table 3

Preparation time (second)

Table 4

Mean values (± SD) of total canal width, outer canal width, inner canal width (mm) of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 5

Mean values (± SD) of amount of deviation (mm) of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 6

Mean values (± SD) of centering ratio of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Tables & Figures

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

A comparison of shaping ability of the three ProTaper® instrumentation techniques in simulated canals

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005;30(1):58-65. Published online January 31, 2005

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2005.30.1.058

XML Download

Figure

Related articles

Comparison of shaping ability of the Reciproc Blue and One Curve with or without glide path in simulated S-shaped root canals

A comparison of shaping ability of the three ProTaper® instrumentation techniques in simulated canals

Figure 1 Determination of the resulting canal shape at six 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.

Figure 1

Figure 2

A comparison of shaping ability of the three ProTaper® instrumentation techniques in simulated canals

Table 1

Classification of groups

Table 2

Preparation sequence

Table 3

Preparation time (second)

Table 4

Mean values (± SD) of total canal width, outer canal width, inner canal width (mm) of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 5

Mean values (± SD) of amount of deviation (mm) of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 6

Mean values (± SD) of centering ratio of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 1 Classification of groups

Table 2 Preparation sequence

Table 3 Preparation time (second)

Table 4 Mean values (± SD) of total canal width, outer canal width, inner canal width (mm) of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 5 Mean values (± SD) of amount of deviation (mm) of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).

Table 6 Mean values (± SD) of centering ratio of each group

ANOVA analysis, significantly different at p < 0.05.

The different letter means significant difference between groups (p < 0.05).