Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study

AIM: The aim of the study is to compare and evaluate the remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Sixty noncarious mandibular premolar teeth were collected and decoronated at the level of cementoenamel jun...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kumar, Tarun, Mittal, Sunandan, Keshav, Vanita, Kaur, Ramanjot, Maakhni, Ena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35722073
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_373_21
_version_ 1784728009139290112
author Kumar, Tarun
Mittal, Sunandan
Keshav, Vanita
Kaur, Ramanjot
Maakhni, Ena
author_facet Kumar, Tarun
Mittal, Sunandan
Keshav, Vanita
Kaur, Ramanjot
Maakhni, Ena
author_sort Kumar, Tarun
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of the study is to compare and evaluate the remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Sixty noncarious mandibular premolar teeth were collected and decoronated at the level of cementoenamel junction with a diamond disc. All specimens were randomly divided into 5 experimental groups – ProTaper Next (Dentsply Mallifer), Mtwo (VDW, Antaeus, Munich, Germany), RaCe (FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), Hyflex electro-discharge machining (EDM) (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), NeoNiTi (Neolix, France) and 1 control group of 10 teeth each. After mounting the samples on a modeling wax sheet, preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken. Biomechanical preparation of canals was done following the assigned protocol of manufacturers. Postoperative CBCT scans were taken and comparison was carried out with preoperative scans. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Difference among the groups was analyzed by post hoc Turkey and analysis of variance tests. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests. RESULTS: A comparison of preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation CBCT images revealed ProTaper Next group to remove more dentin at 7 mm as opposed to other groups in mesiodistal direction. However, no statistical difference was evident between ProTaper Next, MTwo, Race, Hyflex EDM, NeoNiTi file systems at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm in buccolingual direction. A statistically nonsignificant difference was evident between MTwo, Race, Hyflex EDM, NeoNiTi file systems at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm in both mesiodistal and buccolingual direction. CONCLUSION: Race file system performed better and removed lesser dentin in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. More dentin was removed at the coronal in mesiodistal direction with the use of ProTaper Next, and significant difference was seen between Protaper Next group and other groups in the study.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9200186
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-92001862022-06-16 A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study Kumar, Tarun Mittal, Sunandan Keshav, Vanita Kaur, Ramanjot Maakhni, Ena J Conserv Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of the study is to compare and evaluate the remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Sixty noncarious mandibular premolar teeth were collected and decoronated at the level of cementoenamel junction with a diamond disc. All specimens were randomly divided into 5 experimental groups – ProTaper Next (Dentsply Mallifer), Mtwo (VDW, Antaeus, Munich, Germany), RaCe (FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), Hyflex electro-discharge machining (EDM) (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland), NeoNiTi (Neolix, France) and 1 control group of 10 teeth each. After mounting the samples on a modeling wax sheet, preoperative cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were taken. Biomechanical preparation of canals was done following the assigned protocol of manufacturers. Postoperative CBCT scans were taken and comparison was carried out with preoperative scans. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Difference among the groups was analyzed by post hoc Turkey and analysis of variance tests. A P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant for all tests. RESULTS: A comparison of preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation CBCT images revealed ProTaper Next group to remove more dentin at 7 mm as opposed to other groups in mesiodistal direction. However, no statistical difference was evident between ProTaper Next, MTwo, Race, Hyflex EDM, NeoNiTi file systems at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm in buccolingual direction. A statistically nonsignificant difference was evident between MTwo, Race, Hyflex EDM, NeoNiTi file systems at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm in both mesiodistal and buccolingual direction. CONCLUSION: Race file system performed better and removed lesser dentin in both buccolingual and mesiodistal directions. More dentin was removed at the coronal in mesiodistal direction with the use of ProTaper Next, and significant difference was seen between Protaper Next group and other groups in the study. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2022 2022-05-02 /pmc/articles/PMC9200186/ /pubmed/35722073 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_373_21 Text en Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Conservative Dentistry https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Kumar, Tarun
Mittal, Sunandan
Keshav, Vanita
Kaur, Ramanjot
Maakhni, Ena
A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study
title A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study
title_full A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study
title_short A comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: An in vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness following biomechanical preparation of teeth using different rotary file systems: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9200186/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35722073
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jcd.jcd_373_21
work_keys_str_mv AT kumartarun acomparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT mittalsunandan acomparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT keshavvanita acomparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT kaurramanjot acomparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT maakhniena acomparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT kumartarun comparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT mittalsunandan comparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT keshavvanita comparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT kaurramanjot comparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT maakhniena comparativeevaluationofremainingdentinthicknessfollowingbiomechanicalpreparationofteethusingdifferentrotaryfilesystemsaninvitrostudy