Comparative Study of Three Rotary Instruments for root canal Preparation using Computed Tomography
Amina Mohamed El Mottasem Mohamed;
Abstract
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
T
he aim of this study was to compare five root canal preparation systems which are the Protaper, AET, Safesider, K-files and Flexofiles using (CBCT) regarding their tendency for canal transportation as well as their cleaning efficiency at different canal levels.
The canal transportation for mesial and distal side was assessed through comparing pre and post-instrumentation CBCT scan at different root canal levels (coronal, middle, and apical thirds) whereas the canal cleanliness was evaluated using the stereomicroscope.
A total of fifty extracted human permanent mandibular molars were used in this study. Access cavities were established, the tooth length and the canal curvature of the mesiobuccal root canal were measured using direct digital radiography. Samples were divided into five groups equally; for preparation using AET, K files, Protaper, Safesider, Flexofiles systems.
Pre instrumentation standardized CT scan was analyzed at different root canal levels (coronal, middle, and apical) for mesial and distal dentin thickness measurement. Instrumentation was done according to manufacturer’s instruction for all systems. After instrumentation, standardized CT scan was also analyzed for measurement of canal transportation after instrumentation. Data were collected and the change in canal transportation was calculated, then statistical analysis was performed using INSTAT software.
For evaluation of canal cleanliness 10 samples from each group were selected. Longitudinal sections were photographed using the stereomicroscope. Images were analyzed using Image j software for measurement of the canal surface area and the percentage of debris at the coronal, middle, and apical regions.
In canal transportation there was high statistically significant difference between the three levels coronal versus middle versus apical transportation in Safe-sider than other systems. On the other hand, it was found that at the middle third transportation there was high statistically significant differences between the five studied groups while at the coronal and apical third transportation there was no statistical significant difference between all studied groups respectively.
At the coronal third the least transportation was for Protaper and at the middle third the least transportation was for AET while at the apical third the least transportation was for Flexofiles.
In cleaning efficiency, the results showed that there was statistically significant difference of cleaning efficiency percentage between the five systems at the coronal and middle third. On the other hand, it was found that at the apical third cleaning efficiency percentage did not show statistically significant differences between the five studied groups.
It was found that at the coronal and middle third the least debris was for Flexofiles while at the apical third the least debris was for AET.
As Regard for canal cleanliness, it was found that the mean total percentage of debris for SafeSider group for MB was high for coronal, middle and apical levels respectively. These findings showed that the SafeSider system did not clean the root canal adequately. In addition, the ProTaper system did not achieve a completely cleaned root canal.
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be withdrawn:
1. Instrument design was more influential than its operating mode on the preparation outcomes in terms of both canal transportation & cleaning capabilities.
2. Apical third was the most difficult to clean with the all systems.
3. AET system produced cleaner walls than th
T
he aim of this study was to compare five root canal preparation systems which are the Protaper, AET, Safesider, K-files and Flexofiles using (CBCT) regarding their tendency for canal transportation as well as their cleaning efficiency at different canal levels.
The canal transportation for mesial and distal side was assessed through comparing pre and post-instrumentation CBCT scan at different root canal levels (coronal, middle, and apical thirds) whereas the canal cleanliness was evaluated using the stereomicroscope.
A total of fifty extracted human permanent mandibular molars were used in this study. Access cavities were established, the tooth length and the canal curvature of the mesiobuccal root canal were measured using direct digital radiography. Samples were divided into five groups equally; for preparation using AET, K files, Protaper, Safesider, Flexofiles systems.
Pre instrumentation standardized CT scan was analyzed at different root canal levels (coronal, middle, and apical) for mesial and distal dentin thickness measurement. Instrumentation was done according to manufacturer’s instruction for all systems. After instrumentation, standardized CT scan was also analyzed for measurement of canal transportation after instrumentation. Data were collected and the change in canal transportation was calculated, then statistical analysis was performed using INSTAT software.
For evaluation of canal cleanliness 10 samples from each group were selected. Longitudinal sections were photographed using the stereomicroscope. Images were analyzed using Image j software for measurement of the canal surface area and the percentage of debris at the coronal, middle, and apical regions.
In canal transportation there was high statistically significant difference between the three levels coronal versus middle versus apical transportation in Safe-sider than other systems. On the other hand, it was found that at the middle third transportation there was high statistically significant differences between the five studied groups while at the coronal and apical third transportation there was no statistical significant difference between all studied groups respectively.
At the coronal third the least transportation was for Protaper and at the middle third the least transportation was for AET while at the apical third the least transportation was for Flexofiles.
In cleaning efficiency, the results showed that there was statistically significant difference of cleaning efficiency percentage between the five systems at the coronal and middle third. On the other hand, it was found that at the apical third cleaning efficiency percentage did not show statistically significant differences between the five studied groups.
It was found that at the coronal and middle third the least debris was for Flexofiles while at the apical third the least debris was for AET.
As Regard for canal cleanliness, it was found that the mean total percentage of debris for SafeSider group for MB was high for coronal, middle and apical levels respectively. These findings showed that the SafeSider system did not clean the root canal adequately. In addition, the ProTaper system did not achieve a completely cleaned root canal.
Within the limitations of this study, the following conclusions can be withdrawn:
1. Instrument design was more influential than its operating mode on the preparation outcomes in terms of both canal transportation & cleaning capabilities.
2. Apical third was the most difficult to clean with the all systems.
3. AET system produced cleaner walls than th
Other data
| Title | Comparative Study of Three Rotary Instruments for root canal Preparation using Computed Tomography | Other Titles | دراسة مقارنة ثلاثة أجهزة دوارة لتحضير قنوات الجذور باستخدام الأشعة المقطعية | Authors | Amina Mohamed El Mottasem Mohamed | Issue Date | 2015 |
Recommend this item
Similar Items from Core Recommender Database
Items in Ain Shams Scholar are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.