Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo-S™, assessed by micro-computed tomography

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Odontology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to use high-resolution micro-CT to evaluate the effects of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic instruments, Mtwo® (VDW, München, Germany), ProTaper® (Dentsply-Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Revo-S™ (MicroMega, Besançon, France), on canal transportation and centring ratio. Fifty-four mesial roots of extracted mandibular molars with an angle of curvature of 25–35° were randomly divided into three groups of eighteen. Each group was instrumented with a previously unused Ni–Ti rotary system. The final instruments used were #30/0.05 taper (Mtwo®), F3 #30/0.09 apical taper (ProTaper®) and AS30 #30/0.06 taper (Revo-S™). Teeth were scanned before and after instrumentation using micro-computed tomography with a spatial resolution of 20 μm to measure volume and shaping changes. All images were filtered to improve signal-to-noise ratio. To determine the perimeter of roots and canals exactly, images were segmented in each slice with an edge detection process. Canal transportation and centring ratio were evaluated at 1, 3, 5 and 7 mm from the end of each root. The method developed by Gambill et al. was chosen. ANOVA was conducted with the significance threshold set at p < 0.05. No statistically significant differences were found among the three groups in terms of canal transportation or centring ratio at any level. These systems give similar results with regard to the tested shaping parameters. Under the tested conditions and within the limitations of this study, these systems were able to produce centred preparations of curved canals with minimal transportation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Walia H, Brantley W, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of a Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988;14:346–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Haapasalo M, Shen Y. Evolution of nickel–titanium instruments from past to future. Endod Topics. 2013;29:3–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel–titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997;23:77–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004;30:559–67.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Plotino G, Testarelli L, Al-Sudani D, Pongione G, Grande NM, Gambarini G. Fatigue resistance of rotary instruments manufactured usinf different nickel–titanium alloys: a comparative study. Odontology. 2014;102:31–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. American Association of Endodontists. Glossary of endodontic terms. 7th ed. Chicago: AAE; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Schäfer E, Bürklein S. Impact of nickel–titanium of the root canal on clinical outcomes: a focused review. Odontology. 2012;100:130–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. McSpadden JT. Mastering endodontic instrumentation. Chattanooga: Cloudland Institute; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Peters OA, Schonenberger 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Freire LG, Gavini G, Sanches-Cunha R, Dos Santos M. Assessing apical transportation in curved canals: comparison between cross-sections and micro-computed tomography. Braz Oral Res. 2012;2:222–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Shen Y, Cheung G. Methods and models to study nickel–titanium instruments. Endod Topics. 2013;29:18–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1971;32:271–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel–titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996;22:369–75.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel–titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2012;45:514–23.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aguiar CM, Sobrinho PB, Teles F, Câmara AC, de Figueiredo AP. Comparison of the centring ability of the ProTaper™ and ProTaper Universal™ rotary systems for preparing curved root canals. Aust Endod J. 2013;39:25–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Weine FS. Endodontic therapy. 5th ed. St Louis: Mosby Co; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Gergi R, Abou R, Jeily J, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of Twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod. 2010;36:904–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peters OA, Laib A, Gohring TN, Barbakow F. Changes in root canal geometry after preparation assessed by high resolution computed tomography. J Endod. 2001;27:1–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Paqué F, Zehnder M, De-Deus G. Microtomography-based comparison of reciprocating single-file F2 ProTaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod. 2011;37:1394–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hashem A, Ghoneim A, Lutfy R, Foda M, Fatah Omar G. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary Ni–Ti Shaping Systems. J Endod. 2012;38:996–1000.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Basrani B, Roth K, Sas G, Kishen A, Peters OA. Torsional profiles of new and used Revo-S Rotary Instruments: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2011;37:989–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Diemer F, Michetti J, Mallet JP, Piquet R. Effect of asymmetry on the behavior of prototype rotary triple helix root canal. J Endod. 2013;39:829–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Yang G, Yuan G, Yun X, Zhiu X, Liu B, Wu H. Effects of two nickel–titanium instrument systems, Mtwo versus ProTaper Universal, on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2011;37:1412–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Celik D, Tasdemir T, Er K. Comparative study of six rotary nickel–titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. J Endod. 2013;39:278–82.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instrument. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2006;39:203–12.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Plotino G, Grande NM, Falanga A, DiGiuseppe 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.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Soontag D, Ott M, Kook K, Stachniss V. Root canal preparation with the Ni–Ti systems K3, Mtwo and ProTaper. Aust Endod J. 2007;33:73–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Elsherief SM, Zayet MK, Hamouda IM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel–titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res. 2013;27:326–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Arbab-Chirani R, Chevalier V, Arbab-Chirani S, Calloch S. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending behaviour through finite-element models of 5 Ni–Ti endodontic instrument. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011;111:115–21.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Dental School, Hospital University of Bretagne Occidentale, Brest, France

    Karen Vallaeys, Valérie Chevalier & Reza Arbab-Chirani

  2. Laboratory of Medical Information Processing, LaTIM-INSERM UMR, 1101, Brest, France

    Karen Vallaeys & Reza Arbab-Chirani

  3. Laboratory of Brest and Mechanical System, LBMS EA, 4325, Brest, France

    Valérie Chevalier

Authors
  1. Karen Vallaeys
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Valérie Chevalier
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Reza Arbab-Chirani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Karen Vallaeys.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vallaeys, K., Chevalier, V. & Arbab-Chirani, R. Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo-S™, assessed by micro-computed tomography. Odontology 104, 83–88 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-014-0176-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-014-0176-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation