The effects of nickel titanium rotary instrument design on an epoxy resin based sealer penetration

Çalışmamızda Hero 642, ProFile, K3, ProTaper Nikel-Titanyum döner sistemleri kullanılarak yapılan preparasyonlarda AH Plus kök kanal patının kök kanal duvarlarına olan penetrasyonu ve adaptasyonunun SEM kullanılarak incelenmesi amaçlandı. Bu çalışmada 80 adet çekilmiş maksiller santral insan dişi kullanıldı. yirmişer dişten oluşan dört grup oluşturuldu. Her bir grup kendi içinde farklı bir Ni-Ti döner sistemle üretici firma talimatları doğrultusunda prepare edildi. Kanallar üretici firma talimatları doğrultusunda "Calamus 2 in 1" sistemiyle AH Plus patı kullanılarak dolduruldu. Dişler ikiye ayrılıp, SEM ile incelenmiştir. Koronal üçlülerde sistemler arasında karşılaştırmalarda ProTaper, Hero 642, K3 sistemlerinin üçü de ProFile dan anlamlı derecede üstündür (p

Nıkel tıtanyum döner alet tasarımının bir epoksi rezin bazlı patın penetrasyonu üzerine etkileri

In our study it is aimed to evaluate the penetration and adaptation of root canal sealer AH Plus to root canal dentine with usage of Hero 642, ProFile, K3, ProTaper nickel-titanium rotary systems. In this study recently extracted 80 human maxillary central incisor teeth were used. four groups with 20 teeth were generated. Each group was prepared with different Ni-Ti rotary system due to the manufacturer s instructions. Canals were obturated with "Calamus 2 in 1" according to manufacturer instructions with AH Plus sealer. Teeth were divided into two halves and investigated with SEM. Among the comparisons of systems at the coronal thirds ProTaper, Hero 642 and K3 values were significantly higher than ProFile (p

PDF

___

1.Peters LB, van Winkelhoff AJ, Buijs JF, et al. Effects of instrumentation, irrigation and dressing with calcium hydroxide on infection in pulpless teeth with periapical bone lesions. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 13-21.
2.Orstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodon- tic irrigants and dressings of experimentally in- fected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990; 6: 142-149.
3.Oguntebi BR. Dentine tubule infection and endo- dontic therapy implications. Int Endod J 1994; 27: 218-222.
4.Wu MK, Wesselink PR. Endodontic leakage studies reconsidered. Part I. Methodology, application and relevance. Int Endod J 1993; 26: 37-43.
5.Gutmann JL WD. Obturation of the cleaned and shaped root canal system. In: Cohen S BR, editor. Pathways of the Pulp. 8th ed. St Louis, MO: Mosby; 2002, pp 293-364.
6.Evans JT, Simon JH. Evaluation of the apical seal produced by injected thermoplasticized Gutta- percha in the absence of smear layer and root ca- nal sealer. J Endod 1986; 12: 100-107.
7.Lee KW, Williams MC, Camps JJ, et al. Adhesion of endodontic sealers to dentin and gutta-percha. J Endod 2002; 28: 684-688.
8.Hata G, Kawazoe S, Toda T, et al. Sealing ability of Thermafil with and without sealer. J Endod 1992; 18: 322-326.
9.Mader CL, Baumgartner JC, Peters DD. Scanning electron microscopic investigation of the smeared layer on root canal walls. J Endod 1984; 10: 477- 483.
10.McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning elec- tron microscopic study of root canals after endo- dontic procedures. J Endod 1975; 1: 238-242.
11.Taylor JK, Jeansonne BG, Lemon RR. Coronal leak- age: effects of smear layer, obturation technique, and sealer. J Endod 1997; 23: 508-512.
12.Kouvas V, Liolios E, Vassiliadis L, et al. Influence of smear layer on depth of penetration of three endo- dontic sealers: an SEM study. Endod Dent Trauma- tol 1998; 14: 191-195.
13. Oksan T, Aktener BO, Sen BH, et al. The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules. A scan- ning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 1993; 26: 301-305.
14. Torabinejad M, Handysides R, Khademi AA, et al. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endo- dontics: A review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002; 94: 658-666.
15. Schafer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instru- ments. J Endod 2008; 34: 198-200.
16. Shen Y, Haapasalo M. Three-dimensional analysis of cutting behavior of nickel-titanium rotary in- struments by microcomputed tomography. J Endod 2008; 34: 606-610.
17. Gambarini G. Shaping and cleaning the root canal system: a scanning electron microscopic evalua- tion of a new instrumentation and irrigation tech- nique. J Endod 1999; 25: 800-803.
18. Jeon IS, Spangberg LS, Yoon TC, et al. Smear layer production by 3 rotary reamers with different cut- ting blade designs in straight root canals: a scan- ning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96: 601- 607.
19. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004; 37: 832-829.
20. Prati C, Foschi F, Nucci C, et al. Appearance of the root canal walls after preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. Clin Oral Investig 2004; 8: 102-110.
21. Shahi S, Yavari HR, Rahimi S, et al. A comparative scanning electron microscopic study of the effect of three different rotary instruments on smear layer formation. J Oral Sci 2009; 51: 55-60.
22. Lea CS, Apicella MJ, Mines P, et al. Comparison of the obturation density of cold lateral compaction versus warm vertical compaction using the con- tinuous wave of condensation technique. J Endod 2005; 31: 37-39.
23. Buchanan LS. The standardized-taper root canal preparation--Part 3. GT file technique in large root canals with small apical diameters. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 149-156.
24. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abili- ties of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 95: 228-233.
25. Tasdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, et al.Canal prepa- ration with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 402-408.
26. de Deus GA, Gurgel-Filho ED, Maniglia-Ferreira C, et al. The influence of filling technique on depth of tubule penetration by root canal sealer: a study using light microscopy and digital image process- ing. Aust Endod J 2004; 30: 23-28.
27.Mamootil K, Messer HH. Penetration of dentinal tubules by endodontic sealer cements in extracted teeth and in vivo. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 873-881.
28. Heling I, Chandler NP. The antimicrobial effect within dentinal tubules of four root canal sealers. J Endod 1996; 22: 257-259.
29. Kokkas AB, Boutsioukis A, Vassiliadis LP, et al. The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: an in vitro study. J Endod 2004; 30: 100- 102.
30. White RR, Goldman M, Lin PS. The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetration by plastic filling materials. J Endod 1984; 10: 558-562.
31. Farzaneh M, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP, et al. Treat- ment outcome in endodontics-the Toronto Study. Phase II: initial treatment. J Endod 2004; 30: 302- 309.
32. de-Deus G, Maniglia-Ferreira CM, Gurgel-Filho ED, et al. Comparison of the percentage of gutta-percha -filled area obtained by Thermafil and System B. Aust Endod J 2007; 33: 55-61.
33. de Deus GA, Martins F, Lima AC, et al. Analysis of the film thickness of a root canal sealer following three obturation techniques. Pesqui Odontol Bras 2003; 17: 119-125.
34. Gencoglu N. Comparison of 6 different gutta- percha techniques (part II): Thermafil, JS Quick- Fill, Soft Core, Microseal, System B, and lateral con- densation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96: 91-95.
35. Al-Dewani N, Hayes SJ, Dummer PM. Comparison of laterally condensed and low-temperature ther- moplasticized gutta-percha root fillings. J Endod 2000; 26: 733-738.
36. Sevimay S, Kalayci A. Evaluation of apical sealing ability and adaptation to dentine of two resin- based sealers. J Oral Rehabil 2005; 32: 105-110.
37. Sevimay S, Dalat D. Evaluation of penetration and adaptation of three different sealers: a SEM study. J Oral Rehabil 2003; 30: 951-955.
38. Aktener BO, Cengiz T, Piskin B. The penetration of smear material into dentinal tubules during instru- mentation with surface-active reagents: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 1989; 15: 588- 590.
39. Saleh IM, Ruyter IE, Haapasalo MP, et al. Adhesion of endodontic sealers: scanning electron micros- copy and energy dispersive spectroscopy. J Endod 2003; 29: 595-601.
40. Guigand M, Glez D, Sibayan E, et al. Comparative study of two canal obturation techniques by image analysis and EDS microanalysis. Br Dent J 2005; 198: 707-711.
41. Gonzalez-Rodriguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. A com- parison of Profile, Hero 642, and K3 instrumenta- tion systems in teeth using digital imaging analysis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2004; 97: 112-115.
42. Ersev H, Yilmaz B, Ciftcioglu E, et al. A comparison of the shaping effects of 5 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:e86-e93.
43. de-Deus G, Garcia-Filho P. Influence of the NiTi rotary system on the debridement quality of the root canal space. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108: 71-76.
44. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, et al. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 743-752.
45. Bergmans L, van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, et al. Smooth flexible versus active tapered shaft de- sign using Ni-Ti rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 820-828.
46. Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zheng YL, et al. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 707-714.
47. Bergmans L, van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, et al. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft de- sign using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 288-295.
48. Yoshimine Y, Ono M, Akamine A. The shaping ef- fects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2005; 31: 373- 375.
49. Paque F, Musch U, Hulsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 8- 16.
50. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, et al. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 2004; 37: 613-623.
51. Sonntag D, Ott M, Kook K, Stachniss V. Root canal preparation with the NiTi systems K3, Mtwo and ProTaper. Aust Endod J 2007; 33: 73-81.
52. O'Connell MS, Morgan LA, Beeler WJ, et al. A com- parative study of smear layer removal using differ- ent salts of EDTA. J Endod 2000; 26: 739-743.
53. Mozayeni MA, Javaheri GH, Poorroosta P, et al. Effect of 17% EDTA and MTAD on intracanal smear layer removal: A scanning electron microscopic study. Aust Endod J 2009; 35: 13-17.
54. West JD. Introduction of a new rotary endodontic system: Progressively tapering files. Dent Today 2001; 20: 50-52, 54-57.