Format

Send to

Choose Destination
Acta Odontol Scand. 2014 Jan;72(1):76-80. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2013.805430. Epub 2013 Jun 24.

Comparision of two different preparation protocol of Ni-Ti Rotary PathFile-ProTaper instruments in simulated s-shaped canals.

Author information

1
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Yeditepe University , Istanbul , Turkey.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION:

The aim of this study is to compare the root canal transportation with the PathFile-ProTaper recommended protocol, PathFile-ProTaper modified protocol and stainless steel K-flexofiles.

METHODS:

Forty-five ISO 15, 0.02 taper S-shaped Endo Training Blocks were divided randomly into three groups of 15 each and prepared as follows: PathFile-Protaper recommended protocol, Pathfile-Protaper modified protocol and manual preparation with K-Flexofiles. The amount of transportation was assessed by scanning the blocks before and after preparation and superimposing the images. The cutting effects of the instruments from the inner and outer aspects of the root canals were measured and statistically analyzed with the One-way Anova test and Tukey HSD test.

RESULTS:

Manual preparation caused significantly more transportation than both PathFile-Protaper systems. There was no significant difference regarding transportation between the two Pathfile-Protaper protocols.

CONCLUSION:

The modified Pathfile-Protaper protocol transported the canal similar to the recommended Pathfile-Protaper protocol. It may be suggested that, while working safety remains unchanged, the shaping procedure and consequently working time can be shortened with fewer instruments. The results of this study can help clinicians to reduce the preparation time with the PathFile-ProTaper rotary system while the preparation quality remains the same.

PMID:
23796310
DOI:
10.3109/00016357.2013.805430
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Taylor & Francis
Loading ...
Support Center