Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Endod. 2009 Feb;35(2):236-8. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.021. Epub 2008 Dec 12.

The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation.

Author information

1
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Araraquara Dental School, São Paulo State University, UNESP, Araraquara, SP, Brazil.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of dentinal defects (fractures and craze lines) after canal preparation with different nickel-titanium rotary files. Two hundred sixty mandibular premolars were selected. Forty teeth were left unprepared (n = 40). The other teeth were prepared either with manual Flexofiles (n = 20) or with different rotary files systems: ProTaper (Dentsply-Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProFile (Dentsply-Maillefer), SystemGT (Dentsply-Maillefer), or S-ApeX (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) (n = 50 each). Roots were then sectioned 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex and observed under a microscope. The presence of dentinal defects was noted. There was a significant difference in the appearance of defects between the groups (p < 0.05). No defects were found in the unprepared roots and those prepared with hand files and S-ApeX. ProTaper, ProFile, and GT preparations resulted in dentinal defects in 16%, 8%, and 4% of teeth, respectively. Some endodontic preparation methods might damage the root and induce dentinal defects.

PMID:
19166781
DOI:
10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.021
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center