Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of second mesiobuccal root canal instrumentation in maxillary first molars with three nickel–titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study

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

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping characteristics of Protaper Universal (PTU; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Johnson City, TN), Hero Shaper (HS; MicroMega, Besacon, France) and Hyflex CM (HCM; Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) nickel–titanium systems with various apical sizes and tapers in second mesiobuccal (MB2) canal instrumentation using micro-computed tomographic imaging. A total of 27 maxillary first molars with independent patent MB2 canals were selected and randomly assigned to three groups according to the 3-dimensional morphologic aspects obtained from preoperative micro-computed tomographic scans. Canals were first negotiated with a size 8 K-file and finally prepared to F1, F2, and F3 with PTU and to sizes 20.04 taper, 25.04 taper, and 30.04 taper with HS and HCM. Postoperative scans were performed after each instrumentation with the same parameters used in the initial scan. The canal volume, canal transportation, untouched canal surface and wall thickness were measured and calculated using Mimics 10.01 software (Image Works, Materialise, Belgium). Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance post hoc LSD tests. PTU removed more dentin than HS and HCM in all sections when instrumented to the same apical size (P < 0.05). HS and HCM presented a lower mean value of canal transportation than PTU in all measured sizes and sections. PTU presented a lower mean value of distal wall thickness than HS and HCM at the level of 1 and 2 mm below the furcation region in all measured sizes. In conclusion, for MB2 canal instrumentation, HS and HCM of 0.04 taper are safer than PTU.

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. Martins JNR, Alkhawas MAM, Altaki Z, et al. Worldwide analyses of maxillary first molar second mesiobuccal prevalence: a multicenter cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2018;44:1641–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Mario Luis Z, Maria Cristina C, Gustavo DD. Negotiability of second mesiobuccal canals in maxillary molars using a reciprocating system. J Endod. 2015;41:1913–7.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Shivashankar MB, Niranjan NT, Jayasheel A, et al. Computed tomography evaluation of canal transportation and volumetric changes in root canal dentin of curved canals using Mtwo ProTaper and ProTaper Next rotary system—an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10:ZC10–4.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Haupt F, Wilhelm Pult JR, Hülsmann M. Micro-CT evaluation of the shaping ability of three reciprocating single-file NiTi-systems on single- and double-curved root canals. J Endod. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.05.005.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Lin LM, Rosenberg PA, Lin J. Do procedural errors cause endodontic treatment failure? J Am Dent Assoc. 2005;136:187–231.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Alberton CS, Fagundes Tomazinho FS, Calefi PS, Húngaro Duarte MA, Vivan RR, Baratto-Filho F. Influence of the preparation order in 4-canals maxillary molars with WaveOne Gold system. J Endod. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.05.018.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Gagliardi J, Versiani MA, De Sousa-Neto MDO, et al. Evaluation of the shaping characteristics of ProTaper Gold, ProTaper NEXT, and ProTaper Universal in curved canals. J Endod. 2015;41:1718–24.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Camara AC, Aguiar CM. Evaluation of the root dentine cutting effectiveness of the HERO 642, HERO Apical and HERO Shaper rotary systems. Aust Endod J. 2008;34:94–100.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Calas P. HEROShapers®: the adapted pitch concept. Endod Top. 2005;10:155–62.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Miyai K, Ebihara A, Hayashi Y, Doi H, Suda H, Yoneyama T. Influence of phase transformation on the torsional and bending properties of nickel–titanium rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J. 2006;39:119–26.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Zhao D, Shen Y, Peng B, et al. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM, Twisted Files, and K3 Instruments. J Endod. 2013;39:385–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2015;48:131–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel–titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 1995;21:173–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lacerda MFLS, Marceliano-Alves MF, Perez AR, et al. Cleaning and shaping oval canals with 3 instrumentation systems: a correlative micro-computed tomographic and histologic study. J Endod. 2017;43:1878–84.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Da Silva Limoeiro AG, AnHB DS, De Martin AS, et al. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of 2 nickel-titanium instrument systems in shaping root canals. J Endod. 2016;42:496–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Brasil SC, Marceliano-Alves MF, Marques ML, et al. Canal transportation, unprepared areas, and dentin removal after preparation with BT-RaCe and ProTaper Next Systems. J Endod. 2017;43:1683–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Zhao D, Shen Ya, Peng B, et al. Root canal preparation of mandibular molars with 3 nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2014;40:1860–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Peters OA, Arias A, Paque F. A micro–computed tomographic assessment of root canal preparation with a novel instrument, TRUShape, in mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod. 2015;41:1545–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Siqueira JF, Perez AR, Marceliano-Alves MF, et al. What happens to unprepared root canal walls: a correlative analysis using micro-computed tomography and histology/scanning electron microscopy. Int Endod J. 2018;51:501–8.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Rodrigues RCV, Zandi H, Kristoffersen AK, et al. Influence of the Apical Preparation Size and the Irrigant Type on Bacterial Reduction in Root Canal–treated Teeth with Apical Periodontitis. J Endod. 2017;43:1058–63.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Keleş A, Keskin C, Karataşlıoğlu E, Kishen A, Versiani MA. Middle Mesial Canal Preparation Enhances the Risk of Fracture in Mesial Root of Mandibular Molars. J Endod. 2020.; doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2020.05.019.

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Chai WL, Thong YL. Cross-sectional morphology and minimum canal wall widths in C-shaped roots of mandibular molars. J Endod. 2004;30:509–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Elayouti A. Efficacy of rotary instruments with greater taper in preparing oval canals. Int Endod J. 2010;41:1088–92.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Wilcox LR, Roskelley C, Sutton T. The relationship of root canal enlargement to finger-spreader induced VRF. J Endod. 1997;23:533–4.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Versiani MA, Pecora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. The anatomy of two-rooted mandibular canines determined using micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2011;44:682–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JR. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Siqueira IG, Machado BJ, Alexandre C, et al. Influence of cervical preflaring on apical file size determination in maxillary lateral incisors. Brazilian Dental Journal. 2007;18:102–6.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Plotino G, Venkateshbabu N, Bukiet F, et al. Influence of negotiation, glide path, and preflaring procedures on root canal shaping—terminology, basic concepts, and a systematic review. J Endod. 2020;46:707–229.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Otavio JFDAR, Leonardi DP, Gabardo MCL, et al. Influence of Cervical and Apical Enlargement Associated with the WaveOne System on the Transportation and Centralization of Endodontic Preparations. J Endod. 2016;42:626–31.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fogarty TJ, Montgomery S. Effect of preflaring on canal transportation. Evaluation of ultrasonic, sonic, and conventional techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1991; 72:345–50.

  34. Barbieri N, Leonardi DP, Baechtold MS, Correr GM, Gabardo MC, Zielak JC, Baratto-Filho F. Influence of cervical preflaring on apical transportation in curved root canals instrumented by reciprocating file systems. BMC Oral Health. 2015;15:149.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Markvart M, Darvann TA, Larsen P, et al. Micro-CT analyses of apical enlargement and molar root canal complexity. Int Endod J. 2012;45:273–81.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Peru M, Peru C, Mannocci F, et al. Hand and nickel-titanium root canal instrumentation performed by dental students: a micro-computed tomographic study. Eur J Dent Educ. 2010;10:52–9.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Yang G, Yuan G, Yun X, et al. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Mohammadi Z, Palazzi F, Giardino L, Shalavi S. Microbial biofilms in endodontic infections: an update review. Biomed J. 2013;36:59–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Paque 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.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, et al. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2015;48:162–70.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L, et al. Micro–computed tomography study of oval-shaped canals prepared with the self-adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper Universal systems. J Endod. 2013;39:1060–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

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

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  44. Paque F, GanahlPeters DOA. Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2009;35:1056–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Htun PH, Ebihara A, Maki K, Kimura S, Nishijo M, Okiji T. Cleaning and shaping ability of Gentlefile, HyFlex EDM, and ProTaper next instruments: a combined micro-computed tomographic and scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2020;46:973–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study. This research was funded by the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD_2018-87), Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (BK_20191347), General Project of the Science and Technology Development Fund of Nanjing Medical University (project number: NMUB2018168) and Natural Science Foundation of Nanjing (201803045).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Jiangsu Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China

    Yuerong Zhang, Jie Liu, Juan Wang, Hai Xu & Guangdong Zhang

  2. Department of General Dentistry, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Nanjing Medical University, Han-Zhong Road 136th, Nanjing, 210029, Jiangsu, China

    Yuerong Zhang, Jie Liu & Guangdong Zhang

  3. Department of Dentistry, The Ninth People′s Hospital of Suzhou, Ludang Rd. 2666# Wujiang Dist., Suzhou, China

    Yongchun Gu

  4. Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Affiliated Hospital of Stomatology, Nanjing Medical University, Han-Zhong Road 136th, Nanjing, Jiangsu, China

    Juan Wang & Hai Xu

Authors
  1. Yuerong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jie Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Yongchun Gu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Juan Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Hai Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Guangdong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding authors

Correspondence to Hai Xu or Guangdong Zhang.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors deny any conflicts of interest related to this study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Yuerong Zhang and Jie Liu are contributed equally to this work.

Guangdong Zhang and Hai Xu are co-corresponding author.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Zhang, Y., Liu, J., Gu, Y. et al. Analysis of second mesiobuccal root canal instrumentation in maxillary first molars with three nickel–titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study. Odontology 109, 496–505 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00564-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-020-00564-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation