Eğri kök kanallarının tedavi tekrarında farklı Ni-Ti döner alet yöntemlerinin transportasyon ve merkezde kalma etkinliklerinin karşılaştırmalı olarak incelenmesi

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 2, 385 - 393, 24.08.2022

Elif Çiftçioğlu , Enver Sedat Küçükay

https://doi.org/10.15311/selcukdentj.991288

Abstract

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı ProTaper, HeroShaper ve kök kanal tedavisi tekrarı için geliştirilmiş iki Ni-Ti sistemin (ProTaperRetreatment ve R-Endo) kanal transportasyonu ve merkezde kalma kabiliyetini değerlendirmektir.
Gereç ve Yöntemler: Eğim açıları 30-40 derece, eğim yarıçapları 4-9 mm arasında değişen alt büyükazı dişlerinin 120 meziyal kanalı modifiye bir mufla içine gömülmüştür. 15’er dişten oluşan 8 grup oluşturulmuştur. Dişlerin çalışma uzunluğundan 3, 6 ve 9 mm mesafelerde yatay kesitleri alınmıştır. Kesitlerin standart şartlar altında dijital fotoğrafları elde edilmiştir. Kanalların yarısı ProTaper, diğer yarısı ise HeroShaper ile şekillendirilmiştir. Postoperatif fotoğraf alınmasını takiben kanallar sistemlerin kendilerine ait güta-perka konları ve AHPlus patı ile doldurulmuştur. Standart şartlarda dijital kontrol radiyografileri alınmıştır. Dört sistemle kanal tedavisi tekrarı sonrasında alınan fotoğraflar 8 yönde transportasyon ve merkezleme oranı açısından değerlendirilmiştir.
Bulgular: İlk şekillendirmeden sonra ProTaper, HeroShaper'dan daha fazla transportasyonla yol açmıştır (p<0.05). Yeniden tedaviden sonra R-Endo, apikal ve orta kısımlarda negatif transportasyon oluşturmuştur. ProTaper ile hazırlanan kanallarda, apikal ve koronal kök kısımlarında ProTaperRetreatment; orta kısımlarda ProTaper daha kabul edilebilir sonuçlar ortaya koymuştur. HeroShaper ile hazırlanan kanallarda ise apikal ve orta kısımlarda HeroShaper, koronal kısımlarda ise ProTaper ile tedavi tekrarı transportasyon ve merkezleme kabiliyeti açısından daha başarılı bulunmuştur.
Sonuç: Bütün sistemler belli miktarda transportasyona ve merkezden kaymaya neden olmuştur. Protaper, ProtaperRetreatment ve HeroShaper ilk şekillendirmenin hangi aletle yapıldığına bağlı olarak benzer şekillendirme performanıs sergilemiştir. Ancak R-Endo apikal ve orta kesitlerde kök kanalının temizliğinde yetersiz kalmıştır.

Keywords

Kanal tedavisi tekrarı, merkezde kalma, transportasyon, Ni-Ti döner alet

Comparative evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of various Ni-Ti rotary systems in retreatment of curved root canals

Abstract

Background: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the canal transportation and centering ability of ProTaper, HeroShaper and two Ni-Ti rotary systems developed for retreatment (ProTaperRetreatment and R-Endo).
Materials and Methods: One hundred twenty mesial canals of mandibular molars with curvatures between 30-40 degrees and radii of curvatures between 4-9 mm were embedded in a modified muffle system. The teeth were randomly divided into 8 groups (n=15). The roots were sectioned horizontally at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the working length. Cross-sections were digitally photographed under standardized conditions. Half of the root canals were prepared with ProTaper and the rest with HeroShaper. Postoperative photographs were obtained. Root canals were obturated with the respective gutta-percha cones of the systems and AHPlus sealer. Following retreatment with four systems, photographs were assessed for the canal transportation in 8 directions, and centering ratio.
Results: Initial shaping with ProTaper resulted in more significant transportation than HeroShaper (p<0.05). After retreatment, R-Endo yielded negative transportation values in the apical and mid-sections. In canals prepared with ProTaper, in the apical and coronal root sections ProTaperRetreatment, and in the mid-sections ProTaper revealed more acceptable re-shaping results. In the canals prepared with HeroShaper, after retreatment, transportation and centering ability were relatively efficient with HeroShaper in the apical and mid-sections; and with ProTaper in the coronal sections.
Conclusion: All systems caused a certain amount of transportation and eccentricity. Protaper, ProtaperRetreatment and HeroShaper showed similar re-shaping performance with regard to the initial shaping procedure. However, R-Endo yielded insufficient root canal cleaning in the apical and mid-sections.

Keywords

canal transportation, centering ability, retreatment

References

• 1. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 2005;10:30-76.
• 2. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269-96.
• 3. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Critical evaluation of root canal transportation by instrumentation. Endod Topics 2013;29:110-24.
• 4. Weine F, Kelly R, Lio P. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975;1:262-6.
• 5. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30:559-67.
• 6. Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Topics 2006;15:75-90.
• 7. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1998;14:346-51.
• 8. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. A methodology for quantitative evaluation of root canal instrumentation using microcomputed tomography. Int Endod J 2001;34:390-8.
• 9. Schäfer E, Lohmann D. Efficiency of rotary nickel- titanium Flex-Master instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile: part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2002;35:502-13.
• 10. Bramante CM, Berbert A, Borges RP. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endod 1987;13:243-5.
• 11. Peters OA, Schönenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni–Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J 2001;34:221-30.
• 12. Iqbal MK, Firic S, Tulcan J, Karabucak B, Kim S. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile™ and ProTaper™ NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004;37:359-64.
• 13. Hashem AAR, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RA, Foda MY, Omar, GAF. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary NiTi shaping systems. J Endod 2012;38:996-1000.
• 14. Plotino G, Grande NM, Pecci R, Bedini R, Pameijer CH, Somma F. Three-dimensional imaging using microcomputed tomography for studying tooth macromorphology. J Am Dent Assoc 2006;137:1555-61.
• 15. Gomes ILL, Alves FRF, Marceliano‐Alves MF, Silveira SB, Provenzano JC, Gonçalves LS. Canal transportation using Mani GPR or HyFlex NT during the retreatment of curved root canals: A micro‐computed tomographic study. Aust Endod J 2021;47:73-80.
• 16. Hofmann N. Both operator and heat treatment determine the centring ability of Reciproc® files in vitro. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:697-706.
• 17. Hülsmann M, Gambal A, Bahr R. An improved technique for the evaluation of root canal preparation. J Endod 1999;25:599-602.
• 18. Al‐Manei KK, Al‐Hadlaq SMS. Evaluation of the root canal shaping ability of two rotary nickel–titanium systems. Int Endod J 2014;47:974-79.
• 19. Cumbo E, Russo R, Gallina G. Assessment of root canal enlargement using Mtwo and BioRace rotary files. The Scientific World Journal 2015;2015:859693.
• 20. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004; 30: 559-67.
• 21. Friedman S, Abitbol S, Lawrence HP. Treatment outcome in endodontics: the Toronto Study. Phase 1: initial treatment. J Endod 2003;29:787-93.
• 22. Schirrmeister JF, Wrbas KT, Schneider FH, Altenburger MJ, Hellwig EEffectiveness of a hand file and three nickel-titanium rotary instruments for removing gutta-percha in curved root canals during retreatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:542-7.
• 23. Hülsmann M, Drebenstedt S, Holscher C. Shaping and filling root canals during root canal re-treatment. Endod Topics 2011;19:74-124.
• 24. Souza EM, Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Leonardo RT, Bonetti-Filho I, Wesselink PR. Effect of filling technique and root canal area on the percentage of gutta-percha in laterally compacted root fillings. Int Endod J. 2009;42:719-26.
• 25. Hülsmann M, Bluhm V. Efficacy, cleaning ability and safety of different rotary NiTi instruments in root canal retreatment. Int Endod J 2004;37:468-476.
• 26. Mollo A, Botti G, Prinicipi Goldoni N, Randellini E, Paragliola R, Chazine M, et al. Efficacy of two Ni‐Ti systems and hand files for removing gutta‐percha from root canals. Int Endod J 2012;45:1-6.
• 27. Rödig T, Hausdörfer T, Konietschke F, Dullin C, Hahn W, Hülsmann M. Efficacy of D‐RaCe and ProTaper Universal Retreatment NiTi instruments and hand files in removing gutta‐percha from curved root canals–a micro‐computed tomography study. Int Endod J 2012;45:580-89.
• 28. Gill HK, Chhabra A, Jindal V, Vats A, Grewal GS. Removal of Gutta-Percha from the Root Canals using Three Different Rotary Files. Dent J Adv Stud 2013;1:159-62.
• 29. Ali A, Saraf P, Kamatagi L, Khasnis S. Comparative Assessment of Canal Transportation, Dentin Loss, and Remaining Root Filling Material by Different Retreatment Files An In vitro Cross-Sectional Study. Contemp Clin Dent 2021;12:14-20.
• 30. Fenoul G, Meless GD, Pérez, F. The efficacy of R‐Endo® rotary NiTi and stainless‐steel hand instruments to remove gutta‐percha and Resilon. Int Endod J 2010;43:135-41.
• 31. Gorni FG, Gagliani MM. The outcome of endodontic retreatment: a 2-yr follow-up. J Endod 2004;30:1-4.
• 32. Alves FRF, Ribeiro TO, Moreno JO, Lopes HP. Comparison of the efficacy of nickel-titanium rotary systems with or without the retreatment instruments in the removal of gutta-percha in the apical third. BMC Oral Health 2014;14:1-5.
• 33. Sağlam BC, Çiçek E, Koçak MM, Koçak S, Kivanç BH. Apical transportation during removal of root canal filling with different retreatment systems. Int J Artif Organs 2016;39:541-5.
• 34. Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000;26:210-6.
• 35. Kaptan F, Sert S, Kayahan B, Haznedaroğlu F, Tanalp J, Bayırlı G. Comparative evaluation of the preparation efficacies of HERO Shaper and Nitiflex root canal instruments in curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2005;100:636-42.
• 36. Javaheri HH, Javaheri GH. A comparison of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation. J Endod 2007;33:284-6.
• 37. Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zheng YL, Zhang H, Shu Y, Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007;40:707-14.
• 38. Alcota-Rojas M, Compán-Catenacci G, Salinas-Castro JC, Palma-Eyzaguirre AM. Comparative in vitro study of root canal transportation, using three nickel-titanium rotary systems: HERO Shaper, ProTaper Universal, and RaCe. Rev Fac Odontol Univ Antioq 2011;23:9-21.
• 39. Saleh AM, Gilani PV, Tavanafar S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2015;41:548-52.
• 40. Pruett J, Clement D, Carners DLJr. Cyclic Fatigue Testing of Nickel-Titanium Endodontic Instruments. J Endod 1997;23:77-85.
• 41. Gambill JM, Alder M, Carlos E. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22:369-75.
• 42. Setzer FC, Kwon TK, Karabucak, B. Comparison of apical transportation between two rotary file systems and two hybrid rotary instrumentation sequences. J Endod 2010;36:1226-9.
• 43. European Society of Endodontology. Quality guidelines for endodontic treatment: consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology. Int Endod J 2006;39:921-30.
• 44. Rocha MS, Muniz BL, Carapiá MF, Belladonna FG, Tinoco JMM. Transportation assessment in simulated curved canals after retreatment with rotary and reciprocating systems. Rev Bras Odontol 2017;74:187-90.
• 45. da Silva Arruda E, Sponchiado-Júnior EC, Pandolfo MT, de Carvalho Fredson MA, Garcia LDFR, Marques AAF. Apical transportation and centering ability after root canal filling removal using reciprocating and continuous rotary systems: a CBCT study. Eur J Dent 2019;13:613-8.
• 46. Hülsman M, Stryga F. Comparison of root canal preparation using different automated device and hand instrumentation. J Endod 1993;19:141-5.
• 47. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2004;37: 229-38.
• 48. Delai D, Jardine AP, Mestieri LB, Boijink D, Fontanella VRC, Grecca FS, Kopper PMP. Efficacy of a thermally treated single file compared with rotary systems in endodontic retreatment of curved canals: a micro-CT study. Clin Oral Investig 2019;23:1837-44.
• 49. Gogulnath D, Rajan RM, Arathy G, Kandaswamy D. A comparative evaluation of the canal centering ability of three rotary nickel-titanium retreatment systems in the mesio-buccal canals of mandibular first molars using computed tomography. JCD 2015;18:310-4.
• 50. Gu LS, Ling JQ, Wei X, Huang XY. Efficacy of ProTaper Universal rotary retreatment system for gutta‐percha removal from root canals. Int Endod J 2008;41:288-95.