Comparative evaluation of dentinal crack after using reciprocating and continuous single file systems: An invitro study.
Abstract
Introduction: The most critical stage in every endodontic procedure is the biomechanical preparation. Variations in tip designs, taper, and rake angles account for stress concentration and dehydration in dentinal contact walls during root canal instrumentation leading to crack formation. The present study aimed to evaluate dentinal crack formation during root canal instrumentation using various file systems.
Method: Eighty extracted mandibular premolars were selected and divided into three groups. Study samples in Group I (n=32) group IA {Wave One Gold (WOG)}, and group IB {Reciproc (R25)} were prepared with reciprocating files; in Group II (n=32) group IIA {OneShape (OS)}, and group IIB {F360 (F6)} with continuous file system and Group III was control group (unprepared teeth, n=16). Samples were sectioned horizontally to long axis of root at 3, 6, and 9 mm of root, and were subjected to stereomicroscope examination at 25X magnification to analyze the crack propagation.
Result: All the study groups showed cracks. Group WOG manifested statistically fewer microcracks in roots when compared with other groups and F6 showed the maximum number of microcracks. The relation was found to be significant among all the experimental groups (p-value <0.05).
Conclusion: All single file systems can initiate cracks during root space preparation. Wave One Gold system was proved to be most efficient, followed by other single file instruments.
References
2. Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kim BM. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod. 2010;36(7):1195–9.
3. Yoldas O, Yilmaz S, Atakan G, Kuden C, Kasan Z. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod. 2012;38(2):232–5.
4. Ustun Y, Aslan T, Sagsen B, Kesim B. The effects of different nickeltitanium instruments on dentinal microcrack formations during root canal preparation. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(1):41–6.
5. Shemesh H, Roeleveld AC, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. Damage to root dentin during retreatment procedures. J Endod. 2011;37(1):63–6.
6. Pedulla E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E. Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2013;39(2):258–61.
7. Liu R, Kaiwar A, Shemesh H, Wesselink PR, Hou B, Wu MK. Incidence of apical root cracks and apical dentinal detachments after canal preparation with hand and rotary files at different instrumentation lengths. J Endod. 2013;39(1):129–32.
8. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012;45(5):449–61.
9. Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single-file reciprocating System. Roots 2015; 1:34-40.
10. Shemesh H, Bier CA, Wu MK, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR. The effects of canal preparation and filling on the incidence of dentinal defects. Int Endod J. 2009;42(3):208–13.
11. Bier CA, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod. 2009;35(2):236– 8.
12. Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG Jr. The “balanced force” concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod. 1985;11:203-11.
13. Jalali S., Eftekhar B., Paymanpour P., Yazdizadeh M., Jafarzadeh M. Effects of reciproc, mtwo and protaper instruments on formation of root fracture. Iran. Endod. J. 2015;10(4):252–255.
14. Li SH, Lu Y, Song D, et al. Occurrence of dentinal microcracks in severely curved root canals with ProTaper Universal, WaveOne, and ProTaper Next File systems. J Endod. 2015;41:1875–9.
15. Burklein S, Schafer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012;38(6):850–2.
16. Burklein S, Tsotsis P, Schafer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: Reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2013;39(4):501–4.
17. Monga P, Bajaj N, Mahajan P, Garg S. Comparison of inci¬dence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation with continuous rotation and reciprocating instrumentation. Singapore Dent J. 2015;3(6):29-33.
18. Gergi RM, Osta NE, Naaman AS. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, Reciproc and WaveOne instruments. Eur J Dent. 2015;9(4):508–12.
19. Pawar AM ,Thakur B ,Kfir A ,Kim HC Dentinal defects induced by 6 different endodontic files when used for oval root canals: an in vitro comparative study. Restor Dent Endod. 2019;44(e31):1-9.
20. Shemesh H, Lindtner T, Portoles CA, Zaslansky P. Dehydration induces cracking in root dentin irrespective of instrumentation: A twodimensional and three-dimensional study. J Endod. 2018;44(1):120–5
21. Barreto MS, Moraes RA, Rosa RA, et al. Vertical root fractures and dentin defects: effects of root canal preparation, filling, and mechanical cycling. J Endod. 2012;38:1135–9.
22. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Uysal B. Effects of ProTaper universal, ProTaper next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod. 2014;40(9):1482–4.
