Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 367
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 222-224

Comparative study of ProTaper gold, reciproc, and ProTaper universal for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals


1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, Turkey
3 Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Osmangazi University, Eskişehir, Turkey
4 Department of Oral Diagnosis and Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Ataturk University, Erzurum, Turkey

Correspondence Address:
Ezgi Doganay Yildiz
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Kırıkkale University, Kırıkkale, 71450
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_94_17

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate the root canal transportation, centering ability, and instrumentation times with the ProTaper Gold (Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK, USA), Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), and ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: Thirty mesial root canals of mandibular first molars with curvature angles of 35°–70° and radii of 2–6 mm were included in the study. Root canal instrumentation was performed up to F2 or R25. The instrumentation times were recorded. CBCT scanning was performed both pre- and post-instrumentation. Root canal transportation and the centering ratio were calculated for groups, and the data were analyzed using a one-way ANOVA and least significant difference post hoc tests for the instrumentation time, root canal transportation, and centering ratio at the 95% confidence level (P = 0.05). Results: At 3, 5, and 7 mm levels, there was no significant difference in the root canal transportation and centering ratio among the groups (P > 0.05). There were significant differences between the Reciproc and ProTaper Universal groups in the instrumentation times (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Root canal transportation and the centering ratio with the ProTaper Gold were similar to those obtained with the ProTaper Universal and Reciproc.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed132    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded80    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal