Comparison of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Protaper Next, Hyflex Cmandwave One System Using Cone - Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study
Citation Information :
Uppin V, Varghese VS, Pujar M, Kurian N, Vagarali H. Comparison of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Protaper Next, Hyflex Cmandwave One System Using Cone - Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study. 2016; 4 (2):88-93.
Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of Rotary ProTaper Next, Hyflex CM and Wave One primary systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in curved root canals.
Materials and Methods: Total 30 freshly extracted maxillary first molars having root canals with curvature between 10°- 20° were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. All teeth were scanned by CBCT to determine the root canal shape before instrumentation. In Group 1, the canals were prepared with ProTaper Next files, in Group 2 with Hyflex CM files and in Group 3 with Wave One files. After preparation, post-instrumentation scan was performed. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were obtained at 3 mm and 6 mm above the apical foramen and were compared using CBCT software. The amount of canal transportation and centering ability were assessed and statistically compared with one way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant test. (p<0.05).
Results: All instrumentation systems used resulted in some amount of canal transportation. Data obtained suggested that Wave One files caused significantly lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than Hyflex CM and Rotary ProTaper Next files.
Conclusion: The canal preparation with Wave One files results in lesser transportation and better centering ability than Hyflex CM and ProTaper Next rotary files in curved root canals.
Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative Analysis of Canal Centering Ability of Different Single File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9(5): ZC06-ZC10.
Cohen S, Hargreaves KM. Pathways of Pulp. 9th ed. St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier Mosby; 2006.
Carper ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H, Ertas ET. Comparative study of different novel Nickel Titanium Rotary systems for Root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Endod 2014;40(6):852-6.
Silva D, Gomes AC, Silva JM, Neves AA, Zaia AA, Silva EJN. Evaluation of foraminal transportation during foraminal enlargement with different instrumentation systems. Braz J Oral Sci 2014;13(4):246-50.
Ruddle JC, Machtou P, West JD. The Shaping Movement 5th Generation Technology. Dentistry Today. 2013 April. Available From www.Endoruddle.Com
Jain D, Medha M, Patil N, Kadam N, Yadav V, Jagadale H. Shaping ability of fifth generation Ni-Ti rotary systems for root canal preparation in curved root canals using cone-beam computed tomographic: An in vitro study. J Int Oral Health 2015;7 (Suppl 1):57-61.
Beurklein S, Beorjes L, Scheafer E. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with HyflexCM and Revo-S rotary nickel–titanium instruments. Int Endod J 2014;47:470–6.
Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(6):561-5.
Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC, Min KS. Comparison of the centering ability of WaveOne and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(1):21-5.
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.
Luiten DJ, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. A comparison of four instrumentation techniques on apical canal transportation. J Endod 1995;21(1):26-32.
López FU, Fachin EV, Fontanella VRC, Barletta FB, So MVR, Grecca FS. Apical Transportation: A Comparative Evaluation of Three Root Canal Instrumentation Techniques with Three Different Apical Diameters. J Endod 2008;34:1545–8.
Uzunoglu E, Turker SA. Comparison of canal transportation, centering ratio by cone beam computed tomography after preparation with different file systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16(5):360-5.
Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG. The ‘balanced force’ concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod 1985;11:203–11.
Roane JB, Sabala C. Clockwise or counterclockwise. J Endod 1984;10:349–53.
Southard DW, Oswald RJ, Natkin E. Instrumentation of curved molar root canals with the Roane technique. J Endod 1987;13:479–89.
De-Deus G, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010;43:1063–8.
Dhingra A, Kochar R, Banerjee S, Srivastava P. Comparative evaluation of the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape Rotary and Wave One Reciprocating files. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):138–41.
Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:561-5.
Maitin N, Arunagiri D, Brave D, Maitin SN, Kaushik S, Roy S. An ex vivo comparative analysis on shaping ability of four NiTi rotary endodontic instruments using spiral computed tomography. J Conserv Dent 2013;16:219–23.
