scholarly journals Comparison of Canal Transportation, Separation Rate, and Preparation Time between One Shape and Neoniti (Neolix): An In Vitro CBCT Study

2021 ◽  
Vol 2021 ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Maryam Kuzekanani ◽  
Faranak Sadeghi ◽  
Nima Hatami ◽  
Maryam Rad ◽  
Mansoureh Darijani ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
File Systems ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Technical Performance ◽  
Molar Teeth ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Instrument Separation

Purpose. This in vitro study compared root canal preparation in curved mesiobuccal canals of molar teeth using either the One Shape™ or the Neoniti (Neolix) rotary NiTi single-file systems, assessing canal transportation, instrument separation and time required for preparation. Methods. Extracted maxillary and mandibular human molar teeth with mesiobuccal canals having apical angles of curvature between 25 and 35o were selected and embedded in acrylic resin blocks, and an initial CBCT was taken. The teeth were divided into two equal groups (n = 20), and the canals were cleaned and shaped using either Neoniti™ or One Shape™ engine-driven NiTi rotary files. Each individual instrument was used to prepare 5 canals. The time required for the preparation of each canal was recorded. Postpreparation CBCT scans were taken and used to determine the extent of canal transportation at levels of 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm from the apex. The Kolmogorov–Smirnov test for normality was applied, and then, datasets were compared using independent t-tests, with a threshold of P < 0.05 . Results. Neoniti rotary files caused significantly less canal transportation of the curved canals ( P = 0.0001 ). On the other hand, the time required for canal preparation was significantly shorter for One Shape ( P = 0.0001 ). No instrument separation was recorded in both groups. Conclusion. Based on these results, the Neoniti™ rotary file system is preferred because it maintains the original shape of curved root canals better than One Shape™; even though this benefit comes at the cost of an increase in preparation time in clinical practice, the better technical performance may be more important than a difference in procedural time.

scholarly journals Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Apical Transportation and Centering Ratio of Protaper and XP-Endo Shaper Niti Rotary Systems in Curved Canals: An in Vitro Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasin Haji Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Calculated Data ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background: Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is important in an endodontic treatment. Canal transportation is a common procedural error in preparation of curved canals. This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and centering ratio of two rotary files in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods: 44 extracted human mandibular first molars with mature apices and apical curvature of 10° to 30° were selected. The samples were randomly divided into two groups (n=22) with similar curvature. The canals were prepared with ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper file systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. CBCT images were captured using Cranex 3D CBCT system before and after root canal preparation, and canal transportation and centering ratio of the files at 3, 4 and 5 mm from the apex were calculated. Data were analyzed and compared between two groups using independent t-test at 0.05 level of significance.Results: The ProTaper Universal caused greater canal transportation and had lower centering ratio than XP-endo Shaper in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions at all levels from the apex. The difference between two groups regarding transportation was significant at all levels from the apex in buccolingual direction (P<0.05) except for 3 mm from the apex (P>0.05). The difference between two groups regarding centering ratio was not significant (P>0.05) in mesiodistal direction at all levels except for 4 mm from the apex (P<0.05). Conclusion:The ProTaper Universal causes greater canal transportation in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions than XP-endo Shaper.

scholarly journals Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of apical transportation and centering ratio of ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper NiTi rotary systems in curved canals: an in vitro study

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Hamed Karkehabadi ◽  
Zeinab Siahvashi ◽  
Abbas Shokri ◽  
Nasrin Haji Hasani
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
File Systems ◽  
Calculated Data ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Cone Beam ◽  
Computed Tomographic ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
The Difference

Abstract Background Cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is an important step of endodontic treatment. Canal transportation is a common procedural error in preparation of curved canals. This study aimed to compare the canal transportation and centering ratio of two rotary files in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Methods Forty-four extracted human mandibular first molars with mature apices and 10° to 30° apical curvature were selected. The samples were randomly divided into two groups (n = 22) with similar curvature. The canals were prepared with ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper file systems according to the manufacturers’ instructions. The CBCT images were obtained using Cranex 3D CBCT scanner before and after root canal preparation, and canal transportation and centering ratio of the files at 3, 4 and 5 mm levels from the apex were calculated. Data were compared between the two groups using independent t-test at 0.05 level of significance. Results The ProTaper Universal caused greater canal transportation and had lower centering ratio than XP-endo Shaper in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions at all levels from the apex. The difference between the two groups regarding canal transportation was significant at all levels from the apex in buccolingual direction (P < 0.05) except for 3 mm from the apex (P > 0.05). The difference between the two groups regarding centering ratio was not significant (P > 0.05) in mesiodistal direction at all levels except for 4 mm from the apex (P < 0.05). Conclusion The ProTaper Universal causes greater canal transportation in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions than XP-endo Shaper.

scholarly journals Shaping ability of two heat treated rotary NiTi instruments using different kinematics/in vitro study

2021 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Engy M. Kataia ◽  
Mohamed Mokhtar Nagy ◽  
Mohamed M. Kataia ◽  
Hala Fayek Khalil
Keyword(s):  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Heat Treated ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Niti Instruments ◽  
Post Hoc ◽  
Shaping Ability

Abstract Background Comparing shaping ability of Azure and Fanta AF One in rotation and reciprocation. This study was conducted on 40 resin blocks, having canal curvatures 30°-angle and of 16-mm length. The blocks were assigned to 4-groups according to the instrument and motion used: Azure/Rotation (A/Rt), Fanta AF one/Rotation (F/Rt), Azure/Reciprocation (A/Rec) and Fanta AF one/Reciprocation (F/Rec). For both systems single file 25, taper 0.06 were used. Digital images were taken before and after instrumentation. Adobe Photoshop was used to overlap post and pre-instrumentation images to assess canal transportation at 1, 4, 7-mm; representing apical, middle and cervical levels respectively. Stopwatch was used to document the time taken for canal preparation. One-way ANOVA followed by Tukey post hoc test, used to compare between more than two groups in non-related samples. Results At the apical level, no statistically significant difference was found between both files in either rotation or reciprocation. However, reciprocation motion showed significantly lower transportation levels in both files. No significant difference was found among groups at the middle and cervical levels. Regarding preparation time, Reciprocation in both groups was significantly longer. Conclusions The use of reciprocation motion showed minimized apical canal transportation in both files however in longer preparation time.

scholarly journals Comparison of Shaping Ability between Continuous Rotary and Manual Instrumentations in Pediatric Endodontics

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Burcu Güçyetmez Topal ◽  
◽  
Seda Falakaloğlu ◽  
Hatice Türkoğlu ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Teeth ◽  
Primary Root ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Primary Molars ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Apical Transportation ◽  
Canal Transportation ◽  
Shaping Ability

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate the efficacy of rotary EndoArt Ni-Ti Gold Pedo Kit and K-files in shaping ability, canal transportation, centering ability and instrumentation time in primary molars. Methods: For the study total of 30 extracted primary molars root with minimum 7mm root length were selected. Shaping of root canals in primary molars were done using the two systems, and CBCT and specialized software were used for scanning and analysis of pre-operative and post-operative to evaluate the groups for their shaping properties, apical transportation and preparation time in primary root canals. Results: No differences were found in canal transportation measures and instrumentation time between the two groups (p>0.05). The EndoArt group removed more dentin compared to K-file in all sides of the root curvature. The statistical differences were significant for coronal and middle third of the root (p<0.05). Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, rotary EndoArt Ni-Ti Gold Pedo Kit provided more conical canals than K-files in primary teeth.

scholarly journals Analysis of preparation time, wear, transportation and centering ability of Flexofile and Prodesign® M manual instruments in curved root canals preparation

2018 ◽  
Vol 33 (1) ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Fernanda Inês Zarpelon ◽  
Eduardo Nesello Barp ◽  
Daniel Galafassi ◽  
Tiago André Fontoura de Melo
Keyword(s):  
Root Canal ◽  
Statistical Difference ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Tooth Wear ◽  
Radius Of Curvature ◽  
Preparation Time ◽  
Significance Level ◽  
Root Canals ◽  
Time Required

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate preparation time, wear, transportation, and centering ability of two manual instruments, namely Flexofile and Prodesign® M, in curved root canal preparation.METHODS: Forty mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals of the first or second lower molars were used, with standard length, degree, and radius of curvature among all samples. The canals were randomly divided into two experimental groups (n=20) according to the preparation instrument analyzed. The preparations were performed by a single operator. The preparation time was controlled, and the values obtained were analyzed. To verify the wear, transportation, and centering ability of the instruments, tomography images were taken before and after instrumentation. The analysis was performed using axial sections previously identified at 2 mm below the tooth apex with the aid of the OnDemand3DTM Dental program. For statistical analysis, Student’s t-test was used, with a significance level of 5%.RESULTS: The time required to prepare root canals was lesser using Prodesign® M instruments than using Flexofile instruments. Regarding tooth wear, no statistical difference was observed. However, Flexofile instruments had a low centralization capacity in root canal preparation, and there is a trend of transport in the mesial direction of the root canal.CONCLUSION: Although no statistical difference was observed between the two instruments, the Prodesign® M instruments had a better cantering ability in the preparation. As well as, the time required to prepare the root canals was inferior when Prodesign® M was used.

scholarly journals Comparison of Fracture Resistance in Thermal and Self-Curing Acrylic Resins—An In Vitro Study

Polymers ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (8) ◽  
pp. 1234
Author(s):  
António Sérgio Silva ◽  
Aurora Carvalho ◽  
Pedro Barreiros ◽  
Juliana de Sá ◽  
Carlos Aroso ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fracture Resistance ◽  
Research Work ◽  
Testing Machine ◽  
In Vitro Study ◽  
Dimensional Accuracy ◽  
Acrylic Resin ◽  
Thermosetting Resins ◽  
Acrylic Resins ◽  
The Difference

Thermal and self-curing acrylic resins are frequently and versatilely used in dental medicine since they are biocompatible, have no flavor or odor, have satisfactory thermal qualities and polishing capacity, and are easy and fast. Thus, given their widespread use, their fracture resistance behavior is especially important. In this research work, we comparatively analyzed the fracture resistance capacity of thermo and self-curing acrylic resins in vitro. Materials and Methods: Five prosthesis bases were created for each of the following acrylic resins: Lucitone®, ProBase®, and Megacryl®, which were submitted to different forces through the use of the CS® Dental Testing Machine, usually mobilized in the context of fatigue tests. To this end, a point was defined in the center of the anterior edge of the aforementioned acrylic resin bases, for which the peak tended until a fracture occurred. Thermosetting resins were, on average, more resistant to fracture than self-curable resins, although the difference was not statistically significant. The thermosetting resins of the Lucitone® and Probase® brands demonstrated behavior that was more resistant to fracture than the self-curing homologues, although the difference was not statistically significant. Thermosetting resins tended to be, on average, more resistant to fracture and exhibited the maximum values for impact strength, compressive strength, tensile strength, hardness, and dimensional accuracy than self-curing resins, regardless of brand.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document