Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals.

AIM To compare the shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper shaft designed instruments in simulated root canals. METHODOLOGY Simulated L- and S-shaped resin canals were prepared by ProTaper (progressive taper) and high elasticity in rotation 642 (Hero 642) (constant taper) instruments (n = 10 canals in each case). The pre- and post-instrumentation images were recorded and assessment of the canal shape was completed with image pro plus 5.0. The width of resin removed was measured at 9 measuring points. Incidence of canal aberrations, instrument fracture, preparation time and change of working length were recorded. In addition, the change of curvature and centring ability were also assessed. The data were analysed statistically using Student's t-test or Fisher's exact-test. RESULTS In both canal types, Hero 642 instruments prepared canals more rapidly (P < 0.01) and maintained working length significantly more accurately than ProTaper instruments (P < 0.05). In canals prepared with Hero 642 instruments, there was less change in curvature. Instrumentation with ProTaper results in transportation towards the outer aspect of the L-shaped curved canals in the apical part and the inner aspect of the S-shaped canals at the curve. Hero 642 instruments had a better centring ability in the apical part of the canal, but resulted in shapes with a poor taper. CONCLUSIONS ProTaper and Hero 642 instruments prepared curved canals rapidly, maintained working length well and were relatively safe without creating perforations and danger zones. In both canal types, Hero 642 instruments maintained the original canal curvature better, and had a better centring ability in curved canals because of its constant taper design. The taper prepared by Hero 642 instruments in the coronal part of the canal was generally poor.

[1]  L Bergmans,et al.  Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. , 2001, American journal of dentistry.

[2]  B. Y. Cha,et al.  Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. , 2000, Journal of endodontics.

[3]  A. Roth,et al.  Effect of experience on quality of canal preparation with rotary nickel-titanium files. , 1999, Oral surgery, oral medicine, oral pathology, oral radiology, and endodontics.

[4]  E Schäfer,et al.  Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. , 2004, International endodontic journal.

[5]  M. Hülsmann,et al.  A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO 642 and Quantec SC rotary Ni-Ti instruments. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[6]  J. P. Pruett,et al.  Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. , 1997, Journal of endodontics.

[7]  O A Peters,et al.  Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. , 2001, International endodontic journal.

[8]  S. A. Thompson,et al.  Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. , 2000, International endodontic journal.

[9]  L Bergmans,et al.  Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[10]  O. Peters,et al.  ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[11]  E. Schäfer,et al.  Properties of endodontic hand instruments used in rotary motion. Part 2. Instrumentation of curved canals. , 1995, Journal of endodontics.

[12]  S. W. Schneider,et al.  A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. , 1971, Oral surgery, oral medicine, and oral pathology.

[13]  U. İnan,et al.  Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. , 2005, International endodontic journal.

[14]  E Schäfer,et al.  Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. , 2002, International endodontic journal.

[15]  M. Hülsmann,et al.  A comparative study of root canal preparation using FlexMaster and HERO 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments. , 2003, International endodontic journal.

[16]  E. Schäfer,et al.  Properties of endodontic hand instruments used in rotary motion. Part 1. Cutting efficiency. , 1995, Journal of endodontics.

[17]  S. A. Thompson.  An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. , 2000, International endodontic journal.

[18]  H Schilder,et al.  Cleaning and shaping the root canal. , 1974, Dental clinics of North America.

[19]  S. A. Thompson,et al.  Shaping ability of NT Engine and McXim rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. , 1997, International endodontic journal.

[20]  S A Thompson,et al.  Shaping ability of ProFile.04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. , 1997, International endodontic journal.

[21]  S A Thompson,et al.  Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 2. , 2000, International endodontic journal.