SHAPING ABILITY OF NICKEL-TITANIUMROTARY FILES

Wan-Ky Park; Hee-Joo Lee; Bock Hur

doi:10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.1.44

Journal List > J Korean Acad Conserv Dent > v.29(1) > 1056129

Go to TopGo to Top Go to BottomGo to Bottom

TOOLS

Park, Lee, and Hur: SHAPING ABILITY OF NICKEL-TITANIUMROTARY FILES

Original Article

J Korean Acad Conserv Dent 2004;29(1):44-50.

Published online: 14 January 2004

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.1.44

SHAPING ABILITY OF NICKEL-TITANIUMROTARY FILES

Wan-Ky Park, Hee-Joo Lee, Bock Hur

Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentisry, Pusan National University

Corresponding author: Wan-Ky Park, Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentisry, Pusan National University 1-10, Ami-dong, Seo-gu, Pusan, 602-739, Korea, Tel : 051)240-7454, E-mail: beatl@freechal.com

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

ABSTRACT

This study compared the shaping ability of nickel-titanium rotary files with different rake angle and radial land.

The nickel-titanium files used in this study were Profile(Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Hero 642(Micromega, Besancon, France), and K3(SybronEndo, Glendora, Ca, USA) file. Resin blocks substituted for root canals. 36 resin blocks were divided into 3 groups with 12 canals each. The time for canal preparation was recorded. The images of pre- and postoperative resin canal were scanned and those were superimposed. Amounts of canal deviation, total canal widths, inner canal widths, and outer canal widths were measured at apical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7mm levels.

The amount of canal deviation was the smallest in Profile group, and the time for canal preparation was the shortest in Hero 642 group. K3 group resulted in competent characteristics in both measurements. Positive rake angle seemed to result in fast shaping of root canal and radial land guide the instrument in center of the canals and around curvatures. Radial land also tended to reduce the sense of screwing into the root canal.

The proper selection of the nickel-titanium file based on the knowledge about file design is needed for the safer, simpler and faster root canal therapy.

Keywords: Shaping abiliy, Nickel-titanium rotary file, Radial land, Rake angle

References

1. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1:255–262. 1975.

2. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 18:269–296. 1974.

3. Coleman CL, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod. 23:232–235. 1997.

4. 박 한수, 이 민구, 김 종진, 임 영준, 장 문성, 이 종엽. ‘Three file’ 방식에 의한 만곡 근관 형성시 근관의 형태에 관한 연구. 대한 치과보존학회지. 25:494–498. 2000.

5. 박 한수, 백 승호. ‘Two file’방식에 의한 근관 형성시 근관의 형태에 관한 연구. 대한치과보존학회지. 26:507–511. 2001.

6. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 14:346–551. 1988.

7. Thompson SA. An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endod J. 33:297–310. 2000.

8. Morgan LF, Montgomery S. An evaluation of the crown-down pressureless technique. J Endod. 10:491–498. 1984.

9. Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Effect of early coronal flaring on working length change in curved canals using rotary nickel-titanium versus stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 28:438–442. 2002.

10. Buchanan LS. The standardized-taper root canal preparation–Part 1. Concepts for variably tapered shaping instruments. Int Endod J. 33:516–529. 2000.

11. Barrieshi-Nusair KM. Gutta-percha retreatment effectiveness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod. 28:454–456. 2002.

12. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 26:161–165. 2000.

13. Powell SE, Simon JH, Maze BB. A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration. J Endod. 12:293–300. 1986.

14. Kuhn WG, Carnes DL Jr, Clement DJ, Walker WA 3rd. Effect of tip design of nickel-titanium and stainless steel files on root canal preparation. J Endod. 23:735–738. 1997.

15. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 25:441–445. 1999.

16. Camps JJ, Pertot WJ. Torsional and stiffness properties of nickel-titanium K files. Int Endod J. 28:239–243. 1995.

17. Haikel Y, Gasser P, Allemann C. Dynamic fracture of hybrid endodontic hand instruments compared with traditional files. J Endod. 17:217–220. 1991.

18. Wildey WL, Senia ES, Montgomery S. Another look at root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 74:499–507. 1992.

19. Bahcall JK, Barss JT. Understanding and evaluating the endodontic file. Gen Dent. 48:690–692. 2000.

20. Averbach RE, Kleier DJ. Endodontics in the 21st century: the rotary revolution. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 22:27–34. 2001.

21. 박 한수. 만곡 근관에서 근첨 형성 크기에 따른 근관의 전이 정 도에 관한 연구. 대한치과보존학회지. 26:200–205. 2001.

22. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 32:271–275. 1971.

23. Vulcain JM, Calas P. The three wave concept of Hero 642. Endod Prac. 2:20–31. 1999.

24. Bryant ST, Dummer PM, Pitoni C, Bourba M, Moghal S. Shaping ability of.04 and.06 taper ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J. 32:155–164. 1999.

25. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 14:324–333. 2001.

26. Buchanan LS. Curved root canals: treating the most common endodontic complexity. Dent Today. 11:34–38. 1992.

27. Turpin YL, Chagneau F, Vulcain JM. Impact of two theoretical cross-sections on torsional and bending stresses of nickel-titanium root canal instrument models. J Endod. 26:414–417. 2000.

28. Turpin YL, Chagneau F Bartier, Cathelineau G, Vulcain JM. Impact of torsional and bending inertia on root canal instruments. J Endod. 27:333–336. 2001.

29. Powell SE, Wong PD, Simon JH. A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration. Part II. J Endod. 14:224–228. 1988.

30. Miserendino LJ, Moser JB, Heuer MA, Osetek EM. Cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments. Part 1: a quantitative comparison of the tip and fluted regions. J Endod. 11:435–441. 1985.

31. Miserendino LJ, Moser JB, Heuer MA, Osetek EM. Cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments. Part II Analysis of tip design. J Endod. 12:8–12. 1986.

32. Felt RA, Moser JB, Heuer MA. Flute design of endodontic instruments: its influence on cutting efficiency. J Endod. 8(6):253–259. 1982.

33. Koch K, Brave D. The ultimate rotary file? Oral Health March. 59–64. 2002.

34. Blum JY, Machtou P, Micallef JP. Location of contact areas on rotary Profile instruments in relationship to the forces developed during mechanical preparation on extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 32:108–114. 1999.

35. Lim KC, Webber J. The validity of simulated root canals for the investigation of the prepared root canal shape. Int Endod J. 18:240–246. 1985.

36. 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. 92:215–220. 2001.

37. Kum KY, Spangberg L, Cha BY, Il-Young J Msd, Seung-Jong L, Chan-Young L. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod. 26:719–723. 2000.

38. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 2. Int Endod J. 33:255–261. 2000.

39. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int Endod J. 33:248–255. 2000.

Fig. 1.

Superimposing images of pre- and postoperative blocks

Table 1.

Classification of groups

Group	Numbers of resin block	File system
P	12	Profile(Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues Switzerland)
H	12	Hero 642(Micromega, Besancon, France)
K	12	K3(SybronEndo, Glendora, Ca., USA)

Table 2.

Design of each files

File system	Rake angle	Radial land
Profile(Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland)	slight negative	Yes
Hero 642(Micromega, Besancon, France)	slight positive	No
K3(SybronEndo, Glendora, Ca, USA)	slight positive	Yes

Table 3.

Preparation sequence

Sequence	File	Working length(mm)
1	#30-.06T	12mm
2	#25-.06T	14mm
3	#20-.06T	16mm
4	#20-.04T	Working length
5	#20-.06T	Working length
6	#25-.06T	Working length

Table 4.

Time for canal preparation(second)

Sample No.	Profile	Hero 642	K3
1	162	120	136
2	165	116	129
3	160	118	133
4	145	115	138
5	160	124	134
6	148	115	130
7	140	105	134
8	162	120	129
9	170	106	119
10	167	110	135
11	163	114	119
12	150	125	124
Mean(SD)	157.7(±9.1)	115.7(±6.3)	130.0(±6.4)

Table 5.

Mean values(standard deviation) of total canal width, outer canal width, inner canal width, and amount of deviation of each groups(mm)

Distance from apex		1mm	2mm	3mm	4mm	5mm	6mm	7mm
Total canal width	Group P	0.237	0.312	0.378	0.402	0.465	0.506	0.573
		(±0.030)	(±0.026)	(±0.032)	(±0.034)	(±0.015)	(±0.059)	(±0.020)
	Group H	0.272	0.419	0.518	0.518	0.532	0.597	0.652
		(±0.046)	(±0.075)	(±0.056)	(±0.037)	(±0.027)	(±0.029)	(±0.029)
	Group K	0.266	0.375	0.476	0.476	0.537	0.591	0.636
		(±0.058)	(±0.016)	(±0.020)	(±0.023)	(±0.028)	(±0.038)	(±0.038)
Outer canal width	Group P	0.146	0.215	0.265	0.263	0.253	0.230	0.259
		(±0.026)	(±0.034)	(±0.045)	(±0.035)	(±0.016)	(±0.040)	(±0.036)
	Group H	0.159	0.294	0.372	0.326	0.270	0.251	0.283
		(±0.038)	(±0.066)	(±0.052)	(±0.053)	(±0.025)	(±0.027)	(±0.030)
	Group K	0.153	0.252	0.303	0.298	0.268	0.246	0.280
		(±0.044)	(±0.032)	(±0.032)	(±0.024)	(±0.023)	(±0.026)	(±0.041)
Inner canal width	Group P	0.091	0.097	0.113	0.139	0.212	0.277	0.314
		(±0.005)	(±0.015)	(±0.021)	(±0.027)	(±0.022)	(±0.034)	(±0.035)
	Group H	0.114	0.125	0.146	0.192	0.262	0.346	0.370
		(±0.014)	(±0.020)	(±0.032)	(±0.036)	(±0.044)	(±0.042)	(±0.046)
	Group K	0.113	0.123	0.113	0.178	0.269	0.346	0.357
		(±0.021)	(±0.022)	(±0.029)	(±0.017)	(±0.027)	(±0.040)	(±0.051)
Amount of deviation	Group P	-0.025	-0.118	-0.152	-0.124	-0.041	0.047	0.055
		(±0.023)	(±0.046)	(±0.062)	(±0.052)	(±0.035)	(±0.046)	(±0.068)
	Group H	-0.045	-0.170	-0.227	-0.135	-0.008	0.095	0.087
		(±0.033)	(±0.063)	(±0.065)	(±0.083)	(±0.066)	(±0.065)	(±0.071)
	Group K	-0.040	-0.128	-0.171	-0.120	0.001	0.100	0.077
		(±0.037)	(±0.053)	(±0.058)	(±0.035)	(±0.041)	(±0.057)	(±0.084)

Table 6.

Overview of file design

	Profile	Hero 642	K3
Rake angle	Negative	Positive	Positive
Radial land	Yes	No	Yes
Tip	Non-cutting	Non-cutting	Non-cutting
Helical flute angle	Consistent	Variable	Variable
Pitch	Consistent	Variable	Variable
Shank	Metal 15mm	Plastic 14mm	Metal 11.5mm

TOOLS

Similar articles