Centering and transportation: in vitro evaluation of continuous and reciprocating systems in curved root canals

Abstract

Context:One of the goals of endodontic therapy is the shaping and cleaning of the root canal system. In recent years, there has been multiple systems instrumentation, and changes in their dynamics are central to maintain the original shape of the canal after preparation. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate centering and transportation in curved root canals after using ProTaper® and MTwo® in continuous rotation, Reciproc® in reciprocating motion, and a step-down manual instrumentation technique. Settings and design: Mesiobuccal roots of human extracted the first and second maxillary molars were selected and the canals (n = 60) were divided into four groups according to the preparation techniques: PT-ProTaper®; MT-MTwo®; RE-Reciproc®; MI-manual instrumentation.Subjects and Methods: The final apical diameter was standardized to a size 25. Centering and transportation were evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography and Adobe Photoshop 8.0 software.Statistical Analysis Used: The data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey post hoc. Results: Results of transportation showed no statistical differences (P > 0.05) between groups, and significantly, difference (P < 0.05) between ProTaper® and Reciproc® was found when evaluating centering ability in the apical third. Conclusions: We concluded that there were no differences in transportation between the evaluated systems for the preparation of curved root canals with an apical instrumentation diameter of #25. For centering ability, in the apical third, ProTaper® presented worst behavior when compared to Reciproc.Context:One of the goals of endodontic therapy is the shaping and cleaning of the root canal system. In recent years, there has been multiple systems instrumentation, and changes in their dynamics are central to maintain the original shape of the canal after preparation. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate centering and transportation in curved root canals after using ProTaper® and MTwo® in continuous rotation, Reciproc® in reciprocating motion, and a step-down manual instrumentation technique. Settings and design: Mesiobuccal roots of human extracted the first and second maxillary molars were selected and the canals (n = 60) were divided into four groups according to the preparation techniques: PT-ProTaper®; MT-MTwo®; RE-Reciproc®; MI-manual instrumentation.Subjects and Methods: The final apical diameter was standardized to a size 25. Centering and transportation were evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography and Adobe Photoshop 8.0 software.Statistical Analysis Used: The data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey post hoc. Results: Results of transportation showed no statistical differences (P > 0.05) between groups, and significantly, difference (P < 0.05) between ProTaper® and Reciproc® was found when evaluating centering ability in the apical third. Conclusions: We concluded that there were no differences in transportation between the evaluated systems for the preparation of curved root canals with an apical instrumentation diameter of #25. For centering ability, in the apical third, ProTaper® presented worst behavior when compared to Reciproc.Context:One of the goals of endodontic therapy is the shaping and cleaning of the root canal system. In recent years, there has been multiple systems instrumentation, and changes in their dynamics are central to maintain the original shape of the canal after preparation. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate centering and transportation in curved root canals after using ProTaper® and MTwo® in continuous rotation, Reciproc® in reciprocating motion, and a step-down manual instrumentation technique. Settings and design: Mesiobuccal roots of human extracted the first and second maxillary molars were selected and the canals (n = 60) were divided into four groups according to the preparation techniques: PT-ProTaper®; MT-MTwo®; RE-Reciproc®; MI-manual instrumentation.Subjects and Methods: The final apical diameter was standardized to a size 25. Centering and transportation were evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography and Adobe Photoshop 8.0 software.Statistical Analysis Used: The data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey post hoc. Results: Results of transportation showed no statistical differences (P > 0.05) between groups, and significantly, difference (P < 0.05) between ProTaper® and Reciproc® was found when evaluating centering ability in the apical third. Conclusions: We concluded that there were no differences in transportation between the evaluated systems for the preparation of curved root canals with an apical instrumentation diameter of #25. For centering ability, in the apical third, ProTaper® presented worst behavior when compared to Reciproc.Context:One of the goals of endodontic therapy is the shaping and cleaning of the root canal system. In recent years, there has been multiple systems instrumentation, and changes in their dynamics are central to maintain the original shape of the canal after preparation. Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate centering and transportation in curved root canals after using ProTaper® and MTwo® in continuous rotation, Reciproc® in reciprocating motion, and a step-down manual instrumentation technique. Settings and design: Mesiobuccal roots of human extracted the first and second maxillary molars were selected and the canals (n = 60) were divided into four groups according to the preparation techniques: PT-ProTaper®; MT-MTwo®; RE-Reciproc®; MI-manual instrumentation.Subjects and Methods: The final apical diameter was standardized to a size 25. Centering and transportation were evaluated by cone-beam computed tomography and Adobe Photoshop 8.0 software.Statistical Analysis Used: The data were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and Tukey post hoc. Results: Results of transportation showed no statistical differences (P > 0.05) between groups, and significantly, difference (P < 0.05) between ProTaper® and Reciproc® was found when evaluating centering ability in the apical third. Conclusions: We concluded that there were no differences in transportation between the evaluated systems for the preparation of curved root canals with an apical instrumentation diameter of #25. For centering ability, in the apical third, ProTaper® presented worst behavior when compared to Reciproc.