Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relative efficacy of three Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates

학생들이 사용한 세 종류 Ni-Ti file systems의 근관성형 효율 비교

  • Kim, Hyeon-Cheol (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Park, Jeong-Kil (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University) ;
  • Hur, Bock (Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Pusan National University)
  • 김현철 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 박정길 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실) ;
  • 허복 (부산대학교 치과대학 치과보존학교실)
  • Published : 2005.01.01
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping ability of the three different Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduate students. Fifty undergraduate students prepared 150 simulated curved root canals in resin blocks with three Ni-Ti file systems - $ProFile^{(R)}$ (PF), Manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (MPT), Rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (RPT). Every student prepared 3 simulated root canals with each system respectively. After root canal preparation, the Ni-Ti files were evaluated for distortion or breakage Assessments were made according to the presence of various types of canal aberrations. The pre- and post-instrumented canal images were attained and superimposed. The instrumented root canal width were measured and calculated for the net transportation (deviation) and the centering ratio. Under the condition of this study, both $ProTaper^{(R)}$ systems allowed significantly more removal of root canal wall than the $ProFile^{(R)}$ system. In the important other aspects such as the centering ratio, there was no significant differences between the systems. Novice dental students were able to prepare curved root canals with any kinds of Ni-Ti file systems with little aberration and great conservation of tooth structure. Students want to learn effective methods and at the same time simple rotary procedures. The rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ systems were one of the most compatible to these students from the point of view of cutting ability The $ProFile^{(R)}$ system was also compatible in safe and gentle shaping.

이 연구의 목적은 Ni-Ti file을 사용한 경험이 없는 학생들이 세 종류 Ni-Ti file systems을 사용하였을 때 근관 형성 효율을 비교하는 것이다. Ni-Ti file의 사용 경험이 없는 부산대학교 치과대학 4학년 학생 50명이 세 종류의 Ni-Ti file system - $ProFile^{(R)}$ (PF : Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (MPT: Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (RPT: Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) -을 사용하여 각 system으로 하나의 근관씩, 모두 150개의 레진 블락 근관모형(Endo Training Bloc; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland)을 형성하였다. 근관형성에 사용된 file의 파절이나 변형 및 근관형성 후 형태의 이상을 조사하고, 스캐너로 근관 형성 전후의 이미지를 채득하여 중첩 비교함으로써 근단부로부터 1mm, 3mm, 그리고 5mm 높이에서의 삭제된 근관의 폭경, 근관의 변위량, 그리고 중심변위율 등을 산출하고 통계학적 비교 분석을 하였다. 그리고 세 가지 systems에 관한 학생들의 주관적인 선호도를 조사하였다. 그 결과 졸업을 앞둔 치과대학 재학생들도 특별한 문제점 없이 세 가지 Ni-Ti file systems을 사용한 근관형성이 가능함을 확인하였다. 세 실험군을 비교하였을 때, 양적인 삭제 능력은 두 $ProTaper^{(R)}$ systems (manual and rotary)이 $ProFile^{(R)}$에 비해 우세하였지만, 근관의 변위는 두 $ProTaper^{(R)}$ systems에서 더 많이 유발되었다. 근관 중심 이동률 등의 질적 평가를 포함하여 학생들의 선호도를 종합적으로 고려할 때, 삭제 능력에 있어서는 rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$가 더 효율적이지만 안전성을 고려하면 $ProFile^{(R)}$도 추천된다. 정규 교육과정에서 Ni-Ti file systems의 도입을 위해서 초심자와 관련한 더 많은 연구가 진행되어야 하겠다.

Keywords

References

  1. Deplazes P, Peters O, Barbakow F. Comparing apical preparations of root canals shaped by nickel-titanium rotary instruments and nickel-titanium hand instruments. J Endod 27(3):196-202, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200103000-00015
  2. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod 21(4):173-6, 1995 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80560-1
  3. Schafer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod 30(6):432-5, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200406000-00014
  4. Coleman CL, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod 23(4):232-235, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80053-2
  5. Garip Y, Gunday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 34(6):452-457, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00416.x
  6. Schafer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 92(2):215-220, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.114622
  7. Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod 28(4):316-321, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200204000-00014
  8. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Truitt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod 30(4):234-237, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200404000-00013
  9. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 36(4):288-295, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00650.x
  10. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am 48(1):87-111, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2003.10.006
  11. Baumann MA, Roth A. Effect of experience on quality of canal preparation with rotary nickel-titanium files. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 88(6):714-718, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(99)70015-6
  12. Gluskin AH, Brown DC, Buchanan LS. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J 34(6):476-484, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00422.x
  13. Sonntag D, Guntermann A, Kim SK, Stachniss V. Root canal shaping with manual stainless steel files and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. Int Endod J 36(4):246-255, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00661.x
  14. Sonntag D, Delschen S, Stachniss V. Root-canal shaping with manual and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. Int Endod J 36(11):715-723, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00703.x
  15. Hanni S, Schonenberger K, Peters OA, Barbakow F. Teaching an engine-driven preparation technique to undergraduates: initial observations. Int Endod J 36(7):476-82, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00677.x
  16. Qualtrough AJ, Dummer PM. Undergraduate endodontic teaching in the United Kingdom: an update. Int Endod J 30(4):234-239, 1997 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb00703.x
  17. Qualtrough AJ, Whitworth JM, Dummer PM. Preclinical endodontology: an international comparison. Int Endod J 32(5):406-414, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00253.x
  18. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod 14(6):273-277, 1988 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(88)80025-6
  19. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod 25(6):441-445, 1999 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80275-1
  20. Parashos P, Messer HH. Questionnaire survey on the use of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments by Australian dentists. Int Endod J 37(4):249-259, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00784.x
  21. Yared G, Bou Dagher F, Kulkarni K. Influence of torque control motors and the operator's proficiency on ProTaper failures. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 96(2):229-233, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(03)00167-7
  22. Szep S, Gerhardt T, Leitzbach C, Luder W, Heidemann D. Preparation of severely curved simulated root canals using engine-driven rotary and conventional hand instruments. Clin Oral Investig 5(1):17-25, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1007/PL00010680
  23. Yared GM, Dagher FE, Machtou P, Kulkarni GK. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator proficiency on failure of Greater Taper files. Int Endod J 35(1):7-12, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00443.x
  24. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 37(9):613-623, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00860.x
  25. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 95(2):228-233, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1067/moe.2003.92
  26. Schafer 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 37(4):229-238, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00786.x
  27. Iqbal MK, Firic S, Tulcan J, Karabucak B, Kim S. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 37(6):359-364, 2004 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00792.x
  28. Slaus G, Bottenberg P. A survey of endodontic practice amongst Flemish dentists. Int Endod J 35(9):759-767, 2002 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00564.x
  29. European Society of Endodontology. Undergraduate curriculum guidelines for endodontology. Int Endod J 34(8):574-580, 2001 https://doi.org/10.1046/j.0143-2885.2001.00508.x
  30. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod 29(1):15-9, 2003 https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200301000-00005

Cited by

  1. Comparison of shaping ability of rotary Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates vol.31, pp.1, 2006, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.1.001
  2. Comparison of shaping ability between various hybrid instrumentation methods with ProTaper vol.31, pp.1, 2006, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.1.011
  3. Comparison of shaping ability between single length technique and crown-down technique using Mtwo rotary file vol.32, pp.4, 2007, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.4.385
  4. Comparison of shaping ability using various Nickel-Titanium rotary files and hybrid technique vol.32, pp.6, 2007, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2007.32.6.530
  5. Stress distribution of three NiTi rotary files under bending and torsional conditions using 3-dimensional finite element analysis vol.33, pp.4, 2008, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2008.33.4.323
  6. Stress distribution of three NiTi rotary files under bending and torsional conditions using a mathematic analysis vol.42, pp.1, 2009, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2008.01481.x
  7. Prognostic factors influencing clinical outcome of nonsurgical endodontic treatment vol.35, pp.6, 2010, https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2010.35.6.436