Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
https://revodontolunesp.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/S1807-25772013000200006
Revista de Odontologia da UNESP
Original Article

Comparison of preparation time and ability to maintain canal morphology in curved canals: Pathfile + Protaper Universal versus Twisted Files

Comparação entre os sistemas rotatórios Pathfile + Protaper Universal e Twisted Files quanto à preservação da morfologia e ao tempo de trabalho despendido na preparação de canais curvos

Rocha, Daniel Guimarães Pedro; Alves, Vanessa de Oliveira; Martin, Alexandre Sigrist de; Fontana, Carlos Eduardo; Cunha, Rodrigo Sanches; Bueno, Carlos Eduardo da Silveira

Downloads: 1
Views: 500

Abstract

Nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments reduce procedural errors and the time required for root canal preparation. The aim of this study was to compare two rotary NiTi instrumentation systems—Pathfile + ProTaper Universal versus Twisted Files—as to their ability to maintain original canal morphology and the time they require to prepare curved root canals. Material and method: The mesial canals of 32 human mandibular molars (with curvature angles between 20 and 40 degrees) were selected for the study, and divided at random into two groups of 16 canals each. The canals were prepared by an endodontist using either the combination of Pathfile and ProTaper Universal instruments (Group PT) or Twisted Files (Group TF). The double digital radiograph technique, pre- and post-instrumentation, was used by three endodontists to assess whether apical transportation and/or aberration in root canal morphology occurred. The initial and final images of the root canals were compared by superimposition through computerized analysis and with the aid of magnification. The odds ratio test was used to compare root canal morphology preservation, and ANOVA complemented by Tukey’s test was used to compare preparation times. The significance level was set at 5%. Result: Deviation in root canal trajectory occurred in both groups, although the differences were not significant. The preparation time required by the Pathfile + ProTaper Universal combination was significantly longer than that required by the Twisted Files system. Conclusion: Both systems showed similar performances regarding the ability to maintain original root canal morphology; however, the preparation time required by the Twisted Files system was shorter.

Keywords

Endodontics, root canal therapy, instrumentation, radiography.

Resumo

Instrumentos rotatórios em níquel-titânio (NiTi) reduzem erros processuais e o tempo requerido para a preparação do canal radicular. Objetivo: Comparar dois sistemas de instrumentação rotatória NiTi – Pathfile + ProTaper Universal e Twisted Files – quanto à capacidade de preservação da morfologia do canal e quanto ao tempo de trabalho necessário para a preparação de canais curvos. Material e método: Os canais mesiais de 32 molares inferiores humanos (com ângulos de curvatura entre 20 e 40 graus) foram selecionados para o estudo. As amostras foram divididas aleatoriamente em dois grupos de 16 canais. Os preparos foram realizados por um Endodontista, utilizando-se a combinação dos instrumentos rotatórios Pathfile e ProTaper Universal (grupo PT) e os instrumentos rotatórios Twisted Files (grupo TF). Três Endodontistas analisaram imagens com a técnica da dupla radiografia digital, pré e pós-instrumentação, para avaliar se ocorreu transporte apical e/ou aberrações na morfologia dos canais. Por meio de uma análise computadorizada e com o auxílio de magnificação, as imagens inicial e final do canal radicular foram comparadas por meio de sua sobreposição. O teste de odds ratio foi utilizado para a comparação dos níveis de preservação da morfologia do canal, e ANOVA, complementada pelo teste de Tukey, foi utilizada para a comparação dos tempos de preparo. O nível de significância adotado foi de 5%. Resultado: Ocorreram desvios na trajetória do canal em ambos os grupos, mas a diferença entre estes não foi significativa. O tempo de trabalho requerido pela combinação dos sistemas Pathfile + ProTaper Universal foi significativamente maior do que o requerido pelo sistema Twisted Files. Conclusão: Os dois sistemas apresentaram performances semelhantes em relação à preservação da trajetória do canal; no entanto, o tempo de trabalho requerido pelo sistema Twisted Files foi menor.

Palavras-chave

Endodontia, tratamento do canal radicular, instrumentação, radiografia.

References



1. González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. A comparison of ProFile, Hero 642, and K3 instrumentation systems in teeth using digital imaging analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2004;97:112-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2003.08.019

2. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: part 1. Int Endod J. 2000;33:248-54. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00287.x

3. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schönenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int Endod J. 2003;36:93-9. PMid:12657152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00628.x

4. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments: part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2006;39:203-12. PMid:16507074. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01075.x

5. Abou-Rass M, Frank AL, Glick DH. Anticurvature filing method to prepare the root canal. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980;101:792-4. PMid:6935269.

6. Abou-Rass M, Jastrab RJ. The use of rotatory instruments as auxiliary aids to root canal preparation of molars. J Endod. 1982;8:78-83. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(82)80262-8

7. Marshall FJ, Pappin J. A crown-down pressureless preparation root canal enlargement technique. Technical manual. Portland. Oregon Health Sciences University; 1980.

8. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974;18:269-96. PMid:4522570.

9. Hülsmann M, Stryga F. Comparison of root canal preparation using different automated devices and hand instrumentation. J Endod. 1993;19:141-145. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80509-1

10. Berutti E, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Chiandussi G, Pera F, Migliaretti G, et al. Use of nickel-titanium rotary PathFile to create the glide path: comparison with manual preflaring in simulated root canals. J Endod. 2009;35:408-12. PMid:19249606. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.11.021

11. Ding-ming H, Hong-Xia L, Cheung GSP, Lan Z, Hong T, Xue-dong Z. Study of the progressive changes in canal shape after using different instruments by hand in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2007;33:986-9. PMid:17878089. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.008

12. Yoshimine Y, Ono M, Akamine A. The shaping effects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2005;31:373-5. PMid:15851932. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000140568.40462.43

13. Merrett SJ, Bryant ST, Dummer PM. Comparison of the shaping ability of Race and FlexMaster rotary nickel-titanium systems in simulated canals. J Endod. 2006;32:960-2. PMid:16982273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.03.002

14. Alves VO, Bueno CES, Cunha RS, Pinheiro SL, Fontana CE, Martin AS. Comparison among manual instruments and pathfile and mtwo rotary instruments to create a glide path in the root canal preparation of curved canals. J Endod. 2012;38;117-120. PMid:22152634. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.001

15. Luiten DJ, Morgan LA, Baugartner JC, Marshall JG. A comparison of four instrumentation techniques on apical canal transportation. J Endod. 1995;21:26-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80553-4

16. Uyanik MO, Cehreli ZC, Mocan BO, Dagli FT. Comparative evaluation of three nickel-titanium instrumentation systems in human teeth using computed. J Endod. 2006;32:668–671. PMid:16793477. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2005.12.015

17. Câmara AC, Aguiar, Figueiredo JAP. Assessment of the desviation after biomechanical preparation of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds of root canals instrumented with three Hero rotary systems. J Endod. 2007;33:1460–3. PMid:18037059. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.029

18. Hartmann MSM, Barletta FB, Fontanella VRC, Vanni JR. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: a comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod. 2007;33:962–5. PMid:17878083. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.03.019

19. Javaheri HH, Javaheri GH. A Comparison of Three Ni-Ti Rotary instruments in apical transportation. J Endod. 2007;33:284–6. PMid:17320715. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.004

20. Gergi R, Joe Abou Rjeily JA, Sader, J Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of Twisted files, Pathfile-Protaper system, and stainless steel hand k-files by using computed tomography. J Endod. 2010;36:904-7. PMid:20416443. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.038

21. Aydin C, Inan U, Yasar S, Tunca YM. Comparison of shaping ability of RaCe and Hero Shaper instruments in simulated curved canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;105:e92-e97. PMid:18280956. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.11.010

22. Versiani MA, Pascon EA, Sousa CJA, Borges MAG, Sousa-Neto MD. Influence of shaft design on the shaping ability of 3 nickel titanium rotary systems by means of spiral computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2008;13:105:807.

23. Vaudt J, Bitter K, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Ex vivo study on root canal instrumentation of two rotary nickel–titanium systems in comparison to stainless steel hand instruments. Int Endod J. 2009;42:22–33. PMid:19125977. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01489.x

24. Burklein S, Schafer E. The influence of various automated devices on the shaping ability of Mtwo rotary nickel-titanium. Int Endod J. 2006;39:945–95. PMid:17107539. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01171.x

25. Ünal GC, Maden M, Savgat A, Orhan EO. Comparative investigation of 2 rotary nickel-titanium instruments Protaper Universal versus Protaper. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;107:886-92. PMid:19386519. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.01.010
588019527f8c9d0a098b50cc rou Articles
Links & Downloads

Rev. odontol. UNESP

Share this page
Page Sections