Abstract
Introduction
The purpose of this ex vivo study was to observe the incidence of cracks in root dentin after root canal preparation with hand files, self-adjusting file (SAF), ProTaper, and Mtwo.
Methods
One hundred extracted mandibular premolars with single canals were randomly selected. Two angulated radiographs were taken for each tooth, and the width of the canal was measured at 9 mm from the apex. Five groups of 20 teeth each were comparable in canal width. The control group was left unprepared. Four experimental groups were instrumented with hand files, ProTaper, Mtwo, and SAF. Roots were then sectioned horizontally and observed under a microscope. The presence of dentinal cracks and their location were noted. The difference between the experimental groups was analyzed with a χ2 test.
Results
No cracks were observed in the control group. In the experimental groups, ProTaper, Mtwo, and SAF caused cracks in 35%, 25%, and 10% of teeth, respectively. The hand-file group did not show any dentinal cracks (P < .0001). ProTaper and Mtwo caused more cracks than hand files (P < .05), but SAF did not (P > .05).
Conclusions
Instrumentation of root canals with SAF, Mtwo, and ProTaper could cause damage to root canal dentin. SAF has a tendency to cause less dentinal cracks as compared with ProTaper or Mtwo.
The purpose of this ex vivo study was to observe the incidence of cracks in root dentin after root canal preparation with hand files, self-adjusting file (SAF), ProTaper, and Mtwo.
Methods
One hundred extracted mandibular premolars with single canals were randomly selected. Two angulated radiographs were taken for each tooth, and the width of the canal was measured at 9 mm from the apex. Five groups of 20 teeth each were comparable in canal width. The control group was left unprepared. Four experimental groups were instrumented with hand files, ProTaper, Mtwo, and SAF. Roots were then sectioned horizontally and observed under a microscope. The presence of dentinal cracks and their location were noted. The difference between the experimental groups was analyzed with a χ2 test.
Results
No cracks were observed in the control group. In the experimental groups, ProTaper, Mtwo, and SAF caused cracks in 35%, 25%, and 10% of teeth, respectively. The hand-file group did not show any dentinal cracks (P < .0001). ProTaper and Mtwo caused more cracks than hand files (P < .05), but SAF did not (P > .05).
Conclusions
Instrumentation of root canals with SAF, Mtwo, and ProTaper could cause damage to root canal dentin. SAF has a tendency to cause less dentinal cracks as compared with ProTaper or Mtwo.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 262-264 |
| Journal | The Journal of Endodontics |
| Volume | 39 |
| Issue number | 2 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 2013 |