Ceren Feriha Uzuntas, Sebnem Kursun, Ayse Isil Orhan, Pelin Tufenkci, Kaan Orhan and Kemal Özgür Demiralp contributed equally to this work.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
BC, CFU, and PT performed the root canal treatments. AIO and KO performed the selection of the teeth and standardization of the software. SK and KO made the exposures of the teeth in CBCT. SK and KOD performed the literature search. BC and KO designed the study and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
We evaluated and compared the effects of different NiTi rotary systems – ProTaper Next and New One Shape – on the volume of dentin removed, canal transportation, and canal curvature in extracted human teeth using CBCT scanning with different voxel sizes.
Fifty extracted human maxillary first molars with mesiobuccal canal curvature (25-35°) were used. Specimens were instrumented with the ProTaper Next or New One Shape. Pre- and post-instrumentation scans were performed to compare transportation at the levels of 2, 5, and 8 mm and volumes with two different voxel sizes (0.125-and 0.100-mm3) using 3D CBCT images. This study evaluated and compare the volume of dentin removed, canal transportation, and canal curvature. Differences according to instrumentation and voxel sizes were assessed using the Mann–Whitney U-test and the Wilcoxon signed-rank test.
Significant differences were found between apical and coronal levels for both systems (p < 0.05) in canal transportation. In comparing the systems, similar values were found at each level, without significant difference (p > 0.05) in terms of canal curvature and volume. Voxel sizes did not affect the measurements on canal volume, curvature or transportation; no significant difference was found between the 0.100- and 0.125-mm3 voxel sizes (p > 0.05).
Both instrumentation systems produced similar canal transportation and volume changes. The two voxel resolutions also showed similar results, however a 0.125-mm3 voxel size can be recommend for a flat panel CBCT scanner with lower exposure dose.
Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin N Am. 1974;18:269–96. PubMed
Weine FS. The use of non-ISO-tapered instruments for canal flaring. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 1996;17:651–6. 658–660, 662–663. PubMed
Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 2001;14:324–33. PubMed
ProTaper Next rotary files: directions for use. Available at: http://www.tulsadentalspecialties.com/default/endodontics_brands/ProTaperNEXT.aspx. Accessed February 27. 2013.
Cohnen M, Fischer H, Hamacher J, Lins E, Kotter R, Modder U. CT of the head by use of reduced current and kilovoltage: relationship between image quality and dose reduction. AJNR Am J Neuroradiol. 2000;21:1654–60. PubMed
Durack C, Patel S. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Braz Dent J. 2012;23:172–9. CrossRef
Wenzel A, Neto FH, Frydenberg M, Kirkevang LL. Variable-resolution cone-beam computerized tomography with enhancement filtration compared with intraoral photostimulable phosphor radiography in detection of transverse root fractures in an in vitro model. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2009;108:939–45. CrossRefPubMed
Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schäfer E. 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. 2014. doi:10.1111/iej.12289. [Epub ahead of print].
Hatcher DC. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010;141(Suppl):3–6. CrossRef
- Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of two nickel-titanium rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography
Ceren Feriha Uzuntas
Ayse Isil Orhan
Kemal Özgür Demiralp
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II