Abstract: ProTaper Next Shows Decreased Canal Transportation and Better Centering Ability in Study
Root Canal Shaping Effect of Instruments with Offset Mass of Rotation in the Mandibular First Molar: A Micro–computed Tomographic Study
Maung Maung Kyaw Moe, BDS, MDS, PhD, Jung Hong Ha, DDS, MS, PhD, Myoung Uk Jin, DDS, MS, PhD, Young Kyung Kim, DDS, MS, PhD, Sung Kyo Kim, DDS, MS, PhD
- Instruments with offset mass of rotation showed less canal transportation and better centering ability and a comparable amount of dentin removal compared with a system with a conventional centered mass of rotation.
- The resultant swaggering motion of the systems with offset mass of rotation might have a beneficial effect on dentin removal but not on untouched canal areas.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the root canal shaping effect of 2 nickel-titanium rotary instruments with offset mass of rotation compared with an instrument with a conventional centered mass of rotation.
Thirty-six extracted human mandibular first molars with 2 independent mesial canals and 1 oval distal canal were selected and divided equally into 3 groups for instrumentation with ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Revo-S (RS; Micro-Mega, Besançon, France), and ProTaper Universal (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer) systems (n = 12). For apical preparation, PTN X2 (#25/0.06), RS SU (#25/0.06), and PTU F2 (#25/0.08) were used in the mesial canals and PTN X3 (#30/0.07), RS AS30 (#30/0.06), and PTU F3 (#30/0.09) were used in the distal canals. Specimens were scanned before and after instrumentation using a SkyScan 1272 scanner (Bruker micro-CT, Kontich, Belgium) at 10-μm isotropic resolution. Changes in the canal area, volume, structure model index (SMI), and untouched canal area were evaluated. Canal transportation and centering ratio were measured at 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apical foramen. Data were statistically analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance with the Tukey post hoc test.
The PTN and RS systems showed significantly less transportation and better centering ability compared with the PTU system at 1 mm from the apical foramen (P < .05). All instrumentation increased the canal area, volume, and SMI values without significant differences among the 3 groups (P > .05).
Regardless of the differences in the cross-sectional design, alloy type, and taper variation, instruments with offset mass of rotation showed better root canal shaping ability compared with an instrument with a centered mass of rotation.