Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of two nickel-titanium rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography

被引:13
作者
Celikten, Berkan [1 ]
Uzuntas, Ceren Feriha [1 ]
Kursun, Sebnem [2 ]
Orhan, Ayse Isil [3 ]
Tufenkci, Pelin [1 ]
Orhan, Kaan [2 ]
Demiralp, Kemal Ozgur [4 ]
机构
[1] Ankara Univ, Fac Dent, Dept Endodont, TR-06560 Ankara, Turkey
[2] Ankara Univ, Fac Dent, Dept DentoMaxillofacial Radiol, TR-06560 Ankara, Turkey
[3] 75th Year Ankara Oral & Dent Hlth Ctr, Div Pediat Dent, Minist Hlth, TR-06590 Ankara, Turkey
[4] Publ Hosp Agcy Turkey, Minist Hlth, TR-06490 Ankara, Turkey
关键词
CBCT; New one shape; ProTaper next; Transportation; Volumetric changes; ROOT-CANAL PREPARATION; APICAL TRANSPORTATION; IMAGE QUALITY; INSTRUMENTS; PROTAPER; FRACTURES; THICKNESS;
D O I
10.1186/s12903-015-0019-5
中图分类号
R78 [口腔科学];
学科分类号
1003 ;
摘要
Background: 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. Methods: Fifty extracted human maxillary first molars with mesiobuccal canal curvature (25-35 degrees) 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-and0.100-mm(3)) 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. Results: 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-mm(3) voxel sizes ( p > 0.05). Conclusions: Both instrumentation systems produced similar canal transportation and volume changes. The two voxel resolutions also showed similar results, however a 0.125-mm(3) voxel size can be recommend for a flat panel CBCT scanner with lower exposure dose.
引用
收藏
页数:8
相关论文
共 36 条
[1]   Comparison of intraoral radiography and cone-beam computed tomography for the detection of horizontal root fractures: an in vitro study [J].
Avsever, Hakan ;
Gunduz, Kaan ;
Orhan, Kaan ;
Uzun, Ismail ;
Ozmen, Bilal ;
Egrioglu, Erol ;
Midilli, Muhammed .
CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, 2014, 18 (01) :285-292
[2]  
Bergmans L, 2001, AM J DENT, V14, P324
[3]  
Bürklein S, 2013, INT ENDOD J, V46, P590, DOI [10.1111/iej.12037, 10.1111/iej.12161]
[4]   Comparative Study of Different Novel Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems for Root Canal Preparation in Severely Curved Root Canals [J].
Capar, Ismail Davut ;
Ertas, Huseyin ;
Ok, Evren ;
Arslan, Hakan ;
Ertas, Elif Tarim .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2014, 40 (06) :852-856
[5]  
Cohnen M, 2000, AM J NEURORADIOL, V21, P1654
[6]  
Durack C, 2012, BRAZ DENT J, V23, P172
[7]  
Estrela Carlos, 2008, Braz. Dent. J., V19, P114, DOI 10.1590/S0103-64402008000200005
[8]   Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography [J].
Gambill, JM ;
Alder, M ;
delRio, CE .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 1996, 22 (07) :369-375
[9]   A comparison of the minimum canal wall thickness remaining following preparation using two nickel-titanium rotary systems [J].
Garala, M ;
Kuttler, S ;
Hardigan, P ;
Steiner-Carmi, R ;
Dorn, S .
INTERNATIONAL ENDODONTIC JOURNAL, 2003, 36 (09) :636-642
[10]   Comparison of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Twisted Files, Pathfile-ProTaper System, and Stainless Steel Hand K-Files by Using Computed Tomography [J].
Gergi, Richard ;
Abou Rjeily, Joe ;
Sader, Joseph ;
Naaman, Alfred .
JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS, 2010, 36 (05) :904-907