Comparison of newly formed microcracks after instrumentation using protaper next, reciproc and self-adjusting file systems

F. Cakici, E.B. Cakici, B. Sadik, A. Keles, F. Fundaoglu Kucukekenci

European Oral Research. 2019; 53(1):21-24

 

PURPOSE: The purpose of the present study is to assess the rate of newly formed microcracks comparatively during root canal instrumentation by using ProTaper Next, Reciproc, and Self-Adjusting File systems using micro-computed tomography.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty mesial roots of mandibular molars were randomly assigned to 3 experimental groups (n = 10) as follows, ProTaper Next, Reciproc and Self-Adjusting File system. Preoperative and postoperative scans were obtained at the isotropic resolution of 13.68 µm. Cross-section images were examined to identify the presence of newly formed dentinal microcracks.

RESULTS: The Self-Adjusting File and Reciproc systems caused a higher rate of new microcrack formation than the ProTaper Next group (p<0.001). There were also significant differences in the new microcrack formation between Reciproc and Self-Adjusting File groups (p<0.001).

CONCLUSION: Reciproc and Self-Adjusting File systems caused a higher rate of newly formed microcraks compared to ProTaper Next system.

 

The full text of the article is available on the journal's website:

cakici2019cracks

 

Additional Info

  • ReDent Nova’s note:

    The results of this article contradict many other researches published about the creation of micro-cracks, with the Self-Adjusting File or with orther instruments. This is likely because of faulty design of the research: micro-crack researches should be conducted with pre-screened samples, that did not include any preliminary micro-cracks, while in this research pre-existing microcracks were present. In addition, micro-CT researches were shown to promote the creation of microcracks, due to examination process, that is conducted in very dry conditions during several hours.

    Other than that, the 1.5mm SAF should be used after a #20/.04 glidepath preparation, and not the 2.0mm SAF as was used in this research. Such use is likely to create difficulties in the treatment, as the 2.0mm SAF is unable to reach working length with this type of glidepath preparation.

  • publisher: publisher
  • View abstract on PubMed. PMID: 31309188