Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2015; 09(02): 228-233
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.156833
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

The minimum residual root thickness after using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden drills: A cone beam computerized tomography study

Nahid Mohammadzadeh Akhlaghi
1   Department of Endodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
,
Laleh Mohammadian Bajgiran
2   Private Practice, Tehran, Iran
,
Amirali Naghdi
2   Private Practice, Tehran, Iran
,
Elaheh Behrooz
2   Private Practice, Tehran, Iran
,
Zohreh Khalilak
1   Department of Endodontics, Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
04 September 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the minimum residual root thickness (MRRT) of the danger zone after preflaring of the mesio-buccal (MB) canal of mandibular first molars using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden (GG) drills as coronal shapers by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, the initial CBCT scans of 75 MB canals of mandibular first molars were provided within 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm of the furcation level. The samples were divided into three groups. The samples of ProTaper and RaCe groups were prepared up to F2 and #25.04 as the master apical file (MAF), respectively. The coronal preparation of the samples in the GG group was done using GG drills #2, #3 and #4 and canals were prepared till MAF # 25. After obtaining the postinstrumentation images, the MRRT and the amount of removed dentin were analyzed by t-test and ANOVA statistical analyses. Results: The GG drills removed significantly more dentin than RaCe at all the sections (P < 0.05) and more than ProTaper at 3 mm from the furcation. Statistically there was no significant difference between ProTaper and RaCe groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in MRRT between the groups (P > 0.05). The mean MRRT was not < 0.75 mm at all sections. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, when an appropriate root thickness is initially present, all of the instruments that were investigated may safely be used as coronal shapers in MB canals of mandibular first molars.

Key words:

Dental instruments - dentin - instrumentation - root canal preparation
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Isom TL, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Evaluation of root thickness in curved canals after flaring. J Endod 1995; 21: 368-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974; 18: 269-96
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Effect of early coronal flaring on working length change in curved canals using rotary nickel-titanium versus stainless steel instruments. J Endod 2002; 28: 438-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Barroso JM, Guerisoli DM, Capelli A, Saquy PC, Pécora JD. Influence of cervical preflaring on determination of apical file size in maxillary premolars: SEM analysis. Braz Dent J 2005; 16: 30-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Vanni JR, Santos R, Limongi O, Guerisoli DM, Capelli A, Pécora JD. Influence of cervical preflaring on determination of apical file size in maxillary molars: SEM analysis. Braz Dent J 2005; 16: 181-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Schmitz MdaS, Santos R, Capelli A, Jacobovitz M, Spanó JC, Pécora JD. Influence of cervical preflaring on determination of apical file size in mandibular molars: SEM analysis. Braz Dent J 2008; 19: 245-51
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Ibelli GS, Barroso JM, Capelli A, Spanó JC, Pécora JD. Influence of cervical preflaring on apical file size determination in maxillary lateral incisors. Braz Dent J 2007; 18: 102-6
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Abou-Rass M, Frank AL, Glick DH. The anticurvature filing method to prepare the curved root canal. J Am Dent Assoc 1980; 101: 792-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Coutinho-Filho T, De-Deus G, Pinto TG, Gurgel-Filho ED, Maniglia-Ferreira C. A computer evaluation of the dentin remaining after cervical preparation in curved canals: Gates-glidden drills vs orifice shaper. Braz J Oral Sci 2002; 1: 116-20
    Google Scholar
  • 10 Coutinho-Filho T, De-Deus G, Gurgel-Filho ED, Rocha-Lima AC, Dias KR, Barbosa CA. Evaluation of the risk of a stripping perforation with Gates-Glidden drills: Serial versus crown-down sequences. Braz Oral Res 2008; 22: 18-24
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Zuckerman O, Katz A, Pilo R, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with Lightspeed rotary instruments and Gates-Glidden reamers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003; 96: 351-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Duarte MA, Bernardes RA, Ordinola-Zapata R, Vasconcelos BC, Bramante CM, Moraes IG. Effects of Gates-Glidden, LA Axxess and orifice shaper burs on the cervical dentin thickness and root canal area of mandibular molars. Braz Dent J 2011; 22: 28-31
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. The risk of furcal perforation in mandibular molars using Gates-Glidden drills with anticurvature pressure. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005; 99: 378-82
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of ProFile. 04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 2. Int Endod J 1997; 30: 8-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of ProFile. 04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. Int Endod J 1997; 30: 1-7
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Schirrmeister JF, Strohl C, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E. Shaping ability and safety of five different rotary nickel-titanium instruments compared with stainless steel hand instrumentation in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101: 807-13
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Ozgur UyanikM, Cehreli ZC, Ozgen MocanB, Tasman DagliF. Comparative evaluation of three nickel-titanium instrumentation systems in human teeth using computed tomography. J Endod 2006; 32: 668-71
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Dietschi JM, Dietschi D, Krejci I. Nickel-titanium rotary instruments: Review and strategy for development of a new instrument. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent 2001; 13: 385-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Plotino G, Grande NM, Falanga A, Di Giuseppe IL, Lamorgese V, Somma F. Dentine removal in the coronal portion of root canals following two preparation techniques. Int Endod J 2007; 40: 852-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Mahran AH, AboEl-Fotouh MM. Comparison of effects of ProTaper, HeroShaper, and Gates Glidden Burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal volume by using multislice computed tomography. J Endod 2008; 34: 1219-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Akhlaghi NM, Naghdi A, Bajgiran LM, Behrooz E. Computed tomography evaluation of residual root thickness after pre-flaring using gates Glidden drills: The sequence effect. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 142-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Carvalho-Sousa B, Costa-Filho JR, de Almeida-Gomes F, Maníglia-Ferreira C, Gurgel-Filho ED, Albuquerque DS. Evaluation of the dentin remaining after flaring using Gates Glidden drills and protaper rotary files. RSBO 2011; 8: 194-9
    Google Scholar
  • 23 Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Torabinejad M. Passive step-back technique. A sequential use of ultrasonic and hand instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1994; 77: 402-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Akhlaghi NM, Kahali R, Abtahi A, Tabatabaee S, Mehrvarzfar P, Parirokh M. Comparison of dentine removal using V-taper and K-Flexofile instruments. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 1029-36
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Karatas OH, Toy E. Three-dimensional imaging techniques: A literature review. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 132-40
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Nur BG, Ok E, Altunsoy M, Aglarci OS, Colak M, Gungor E. Evaluation of the root and canal morphology of mandibular permanent molars in a south-eastern Turkish population using cone-beam computed tomography. Eur J Dent 2014; 8: 154-9
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Hervás A, Forner L, Llena C, Zaragoza E. Evaluation of morphological changes produced by orifice opener systems using computerized tomography (CT). Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2009; 14: e674-9
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Gluskin AH, Brown DC, Buchanan LS. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J 2001; 34: 476-84
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Kessler JR, Peters DD, Lorton L. Comparison of the relative risk of molar root perforations using various endodontic instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1983; 9: 439-47
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 McCann JT, Keller DL, LaBounty GL. A modification of the muffle model system to study root canal morphology. J Endod 1990; 16: 114-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Berutti E, Fedon G. Thickness of cementum/dentin in mesial roots of mandibular first molars. J Endod 1992; 18: 545-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Garala M, Kuttler S, Hardigan P, Steiner-Carmi R, Dorn S. A comparison of the minimum canal wall thickness remaining following preparation using two nickel-titanium rotary systems. Int Endod J 2003; 36: 636-42
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Lim SS, Stock CJ. The risk of perforation in the curved canal: Anticurvature filing compared with the stepback technique. Int Endod J 1987; 20: 33-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Raiden G, Koss S, Costa L, Hernández JL. Radiographic measurement of residual root thickness in premolars with post preparation. J Endod 2001; 27: 296-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar