Abstract

Aim: This study aimed to compare dentinal defects after root canal preparation with various reciprocating and continuous rotary files.

Methods: 90 extracted human mandibular incisor teeth were used. 15 teeth left unprepared and the remaning teeth were randomly divided into 5 experimental groups (n=15). Root canals were prepared with WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Hyflex EDM OneFile (Coltene/Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary files. Then roots were sectioned at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex and evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square and Fischer’s Exact test. The significance level was set at 5%.

Results: No defects were observed in the unprepared control group. Dentin defect were observed in all the experimental groups, especially in the apical region (3 mm). WaveOne and Hyflex EDM showed more dentinal defects than the control group (p<0.05); however, no significant difference was found between them (p>0.05). WaveOne caused significantly more dentinal defects than the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne Gold groups (p<0.05). Hyflex EDM caused more defects than ProTaper Next (p<0.05). There was no difference between the other experimental groups (p>0.05).

Conclusion: All the rotary file systems used in this study caused dentinal defects regardless of the motion kinematics.

Keywords: Dentinal defect, rotary instrumentation, stereomicroscope

Copyright and license

Copyright © 2023 The Author(s). This is an open-access article published by Bolu İzzet Baysal Training and Research Hospital under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited.

How to cite

1.
Yakın E, Aslan B, Odabaşı Tezer E. A comparative evaluation of dentinal defects after root canal preparation with different rotary and reciprocal systems. Northwestern Med J. 2023;3(3):147-55. https://doi.org/10.54307/NWMJ.2023.29491

References

  1. Priya NT, Chandrasekhar V, Anita S, et al. “Dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation” a comparative evaluation with hand, rotary and reciprocating instrumentation. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(12): ZC70-2. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2014/11437.5349
  2. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Uysal B. Effects of ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40(9): 1482-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.026
  3. Cohen S, Blanco L, Berman L. Vertical root fractures: clinical and radiographic diagnosis. J Am Dent Assoc. 2003; 134(4): 434-41. https://doi.org/10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0192
  4. Tsesis I, Rosen E, Tamse A, Taschieri S, Kfir A. Diagnosis of vertical root fractures in endodontically treated teeth based on clinical and radiographic indices: a systematic review. J Endod. 2010; 36(9): 1455-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.05.003
  5. Bier CA, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(2): 236-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.021
  6. Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schäfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2013; 39(4): 501-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.045
  7. Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, Wu MK, Shemesh H. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod. 2013; 39(8): 1054-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.013
  8. Ceyhanli KT, Erdilek N, Tatar I, Celik D. Comparison of ProTaper, RaCe and Safesider instruments in the induction of dentinal microcracks: a micro-CT study. Int Endod J. 2016; 49(7): 684-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12497
  9. Arias A, Lee YH, Peters CI, Gluskin AH, Peters OA. Comparison of 2 canal preparation techniques in the induction of microcracks: a pilot study with cadaver mandibles. J Endod. 2014; 40(7): 982-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.003
  10. Wilcox LR, Roskelley C, Sutton T. The relationship of root canal enlargement to finger-spreader induced vertical root fracture. J Endod. 1997; 23(8): 533-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80316-0
  11. Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Suda H. Crack initiation on the apical root surface caused by three different nickel-titanium rotary files at different working lengths. J Endod. 2011; 37(4): 522-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.002
  12. De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Marins J, et al. Lack of causal relationship between dentinal microcracks and root canal preparation with reciprocation systems. J Endod. 2014; 40(9): 1447-50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.019
  13. Monga P, Bajaj N, Mahajan P, Garg S. Comparison of incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation with continuous rotation and reciprocating instrumentation. Singapore Dent J. 2015; 36: 29-33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sdj.2015.09.003
  14. Coelho MS, Card SJ, Tawil PZ. Visualization Enhancement of Dentinal Defects by Using Light-Emitting Diode Transillumination. J Endod. 2016; 42(7): 1110-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.04.006
  15. Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kim BM. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod. 2010; 36(7): 1195-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.010
  16. Belladonna FG, Rodrigues LLC, Leal ASM, et al. Is canal overinstrumentation able to produce apical root dentinal microcracks in extracted teeth? Int Endod J. 2021; 54(9): 1647-52. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13540
  17. Pirani C, Iacono F, Generali L, et al. HyFlex EDM: superficial features, metallurgical analysis and fatigue resistance of innovative electro discharge machined NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2016; 49(5): 483-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12470
  18. Çiçek E, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, Koçak S. Evaluation of microcrack formation in root canals after instrumentation with different NiTi rotary file systems: a scanning electron microscopy study. Scanning. 2015; 37(1): 49-53. https://doi.org/10.1002/sca.21178
  19. Karataş E, Gündüz HA, Kırıcı DÖ, Arslan H, Topçu MÇ, Yeter KY. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, and WaveOne instruments. J Endod. 2015; 41(2): 261-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.019
  20. Ustun Y, Aslan T, Sagsen B, Kesim B. The effects of different nickel-titanium instruments on dentinal microcrack formations during root canal preparation. Eur J Dent. 2015; 9(1): 41-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.149638
  21. Ashraf F, Shankarappa P, Misra A, Sawhney A, Sridevi N, Singh A. A Stereomicroscopic Evaluation of Dentinal Cracks at Different Instrumentation Lengths by Using Different Rotary Files (ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM): An Ex Vivo Study. Scientifica (Cairo). 2016; 2016: 8379865. https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/8379865
  22. Pedullà E, Genovesi F, Rapisarda S, et al. Effects of 6 Single-File Systems on Dentinal Crack Formation. J Endod. 2017; 43(3): 456-61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.10.038
  23. Das S, Pradhan PK, Lata S, Sinha SP. Comparative evaluation of dentinal crack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and Hyflex EDM. J Conserv Dent. 2018; 21(2): 153-6. https://doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_219_17
  24. De-Deus G, César de Azevedo Carvalhal J, Belladonna FG, et al. Dentinal Microcrack Development after Canal Preparation: A Longitudinal in Situ Micro-computed Tomography Study Using a Cadaver Model. J Endod. 2017; 43(9): 1553-8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.027
  25. PradeepKumar AR, Shemesh H, Archana D, et al. Root Canal Preparation Does Not Induce Dentinal Microcracks In Vivo. J Endod. 2019; 45(10): 1258-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.06.010
  26. Martins J, Oliveira BP, Duarte DA, Antonino ACD, Aguiar CM, Câmara AC. Micro-computed tomographic assessment of dentinal microcrack formation in straight and curved root canals in extracted teeth prepared with hand, rotary and reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J. 2021; 54(8): 1362-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13521
  27. Miguéns-Vila R, Martín-Biedma B, De-Deus G, Belladonna FG, Peña-López A, Castelo-Baz P. Micro-computed Tomographic Evaluation of Dentinal Microcracks after Preparation of Curved Root Canals with ProTaper Gold, WaveOne Gold, and ProTaper Next Instruments. J Endod. 2021; 47(2): 309-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.10.014
  28. Bayram HM, Bayram E, Ocak M, Uygun AD, Celik HH. Effect of ProTaper Gold, Self-Adjusting File, and XP-endo Shaper Instruments on Dentinal Microcrack Formation: A Micro-computed Tomographic Study. J Endod. 2017; 43(7): 1166-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.02.005
  29. Aggarwal A, Nawal RR, Yadav S, Talwar S, Kunnoth S, Mahajan P. Comparative Evaluation of Dentinal Microcrack Formation before and after Root Canal Preparation Using Rotary, Reciprocating, and Adaptive Instruments at Different Working Lengths-A Micro-computed Tomographic Study. J Endod. 2021; 47(8): 1314-20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2021.05.004
  30. Aksoy Ç, Keriş EY, Yaman SD, Ocak M, Geneci F, Çelik HH. Evaluation of XP-endo Shaper, Reciproc Blue, and ProTaper Universal NiTi Systems on Dentinal Microcrack Formation Using Micro-Computed Tomography. J Endod. 2019; 45(3): 338-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.12.005
  31. Chen C, Zhang W, Liang Y. Evaluation of apical root defects during canal instrumentation with two different nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems by optical coherence tomography (OCT) scan. J Dent Sci. 2022; 17(2): 763-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2021.10.009
  32. Shemesh H, Lindtner T, Portoles CA, Zaslansky P. Dehydration Induces Cracking in Root Dentin Irrespective of Instrumentation: A Two-dimensional and Three-dimensional Study. J Endod. 2018; 44(1): 120-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.07.025
  33. De-Deus G, Cavalcante DM, Belladonna FG, et al. Root dentinal microcracks: a post-extraction experimental phenomenon?. Int Endod J. 2019; 52(6): 857-65. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13058
  34. Fráter M, Jakab A, Braunitzer G, Tóth Z, Nagy K. The potential effect of instrumentation with different nickel titanium rotary systems on dentinal crack formation-An in vitro study. PLoS One. 2020; 15(9): e0238790. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0238790
  35. Üstün Y, Topçuoğlu HS, Düzgün S, Kesim B. The effect of reciprocation versus rotational movement on the incidence of root defects during retreatment procedures. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(10): 952-8. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12387
  36. Pawar AM, Thakur B, Kfir A, Kim HC. Dentinal defects induced by 6 different endodontic files when used for oval root canals: an in vitro comparative study. Restor Dent Endod. 2019; 44(3): e31. https://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2019.44.e31
  37. Rahman H, Chandra A, Khangwal M, Goel A, Shakya VK. Stereomicroscopic Evaluation of Microcrack Formation in Dentin by ProTaper Next, Revo S, and WaveOne Gold File System. Contemp Clin Dent. 2021; 12(4): 439-43. https://doi.org/10.4103/ccd.ccd_760_20
  38. Zaslansky P, Prates Soares A, Shemesh H. Root dentinal microcracks - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Int Endod J. 2020; 53(1): 135-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13207