The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology, 2020, 2(3); doi: 10.25236/FSST.2020.020307.
Lihua Zhan1*, Zhuonan Wang1,2*, Wei Xie1, Zejian Li1, Shuyuan Ma1, Renfa Lai1
1. Department of Stomatology, the First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou Guangdong, China
2. Department of Stomatology, Chashan Hospital of Dongguan, Dongguan Guangdong, China
*Equal contributors and co-first authors.
*Correspondence Author:
Objective: The goal of this study is to use cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT)-based three-dimensional (3D) imaging to compare the performance of three nickel-titanium instruments, namely, Mtwo, ProTaper Universal, and ProTaper. Next, in the preparation of the curved mesiobuccal root canal of the maxillary first molar. Conclusion: In root canal preparation, the ProTaper Next nickel instrument generates a moderate degree of dentin removal and is associated with the least transportation in the apical segment, which is the most crucial region.
Cone-beam computed tomography (cbct); Root canal therapy, Root canal preparation; Nickel-titanium instrument; Apical transportation
Lihua Zhan, Zhuonan Wang, Wei Xie, Zejian Li, Shuyuan Ma, Renfa Lai. A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Imaging-Based Comparative Study on Root Canal Preparation Using Three Different Nickel-Titanium Instruments. The Frontiers of Society, Science and Technology (2020) Vol. 2 Issue 3: 27-34. https://doi.org/10.25236/FSST.2020.020307.
[1] Haapasalo M, Shen Y (2013). Evolution of nickelâtitanium instruments: from past to future. ENDODONTIC TOPICS, no.29, pp.3-17.
[2] Bramante CM, Berbert A, Borges RP (1987). A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J ENDODONT, no.13, pp.243-245.
[3] Pasqualini D, Alovisi M, Cemenasco A, et al (2015). Micro–Computed Tomography Evaluation of ProTaper Next and BioRace Shaping Outcomes in Maxillary First Molar Curved Canals. J ENDODONT, no.41, pp.1706-1710.
[4] Marceliano-Alves MFV, Sousa-Neto MD, Fidel SR, et al (2014). Shaping ability of single-file reciprocating and heat-treated multifile rotary systems: A micro-CT study. INT ENDOD J, no.48, pp.1129-1136.
[5] Saber SEDM, Nagy MM, Schäfer E (2015). Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. INT ENDOD J, no.48, pp.109-114.
[6] Gambill JM, Alder M, Del Rio CE (1996). Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J ENDODONT, no.22, pp.369-375.
[7] Hatcher, David C (2010). Operational Principles for Cone-Beam Computed Tomography. J AM DENT ASSOC, no.141, pp.3S-6S.
[8] Madani Z S, Goudarzipor D, Haddadi A (2015). A CBCT Assessment of Apical Transportation in Root Canals Prepared with Hand K-Flexofile and K3 Rotary Instruments. IRANIAN ENDODONT J, no.10, pp. 44-48.
[9] Cunningham CJ, Senia ES (1992). A three-dimensional study of canal curvatures in the mesial roots of mandibular molars. J ENDODONT, no.18, pp.294-300.
[10] Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, et al (2012). Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. INT ENDOD J, no.45, pp.449-461.
[11] Schneider S (1971). A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. OR SURG OR MED OR PA, no.32, pp.271-275.
[12] You SY, Hyeon-Cheol K, Kwang-Shik B, et al (2011). Shaping Ability of Reciprocating Motion in Curved Root Canals: A Comparative Study with Micro–Computed Tomography. J ENDODONT, no.37, pp.1296-1300.
[13] Karabucak B, Adam Joseph G, Chinchai H, et al (2010). A Comparison of Apical Transportation and Length Control between EndoSequence and Guidance Rotary Instruments. J ENDODONT, no.36, pp. 123-125.
[14] Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H (1998). An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J ENDODONT, no.14, pp.346-351.
[15] Vallaeys K, Chevalier V, Arbab-Chirani R (2016). Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper, MTwo and Revo-S. assessed by micro-computed tomography. ODONTOLOGY, no.104, pp.83-88.
[16] Wu MK, Bing F, Paul RW (2000). Leakage Along Apical Root Fillings In Curved Root Canals. Part I: Effects Of Apical Transportation On Seal Of Root Fillings. J ENDODONT, no.27, pp.79-79.
[17] Bürklein S, Poschmann T, Sch fer E (2015). Shaping Ability of Different Nickel-Titanium Systems in Simulated S-shaped Canals with and without Glide Path. J ENDODONT, no.40, pp.1231-1234.
[18] Leal S, Vieira V, Tameir M, et al (2016). Quantitative transportation assessment in curved canals prepared with an off-centered rectangular design system. BRAZ ORAL RES, no.30, pp.43-44.
[19] Liu W, Wu B (2016). Root Canal Surface Strain and Canal Center Transportation Induced by 3 Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary InstrumentSystems. J ENDODONT, no.42, pp.299-303.
[20] Wei Z, Cui Z, Yan P, Jiang H (2017). A comparison of the shaping ability of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study via a contrast radiopaque technique in vitro. BMC ORAL HEALTH, pp.17-39.
[21] Silva EJNL, Pacheco PT, Pires F, Belladonna FG and De-Deus G (2017). Microcomputed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation and centring ability of ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive systems. INT ENDOD J, no.50, pp.694-699.