Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 379
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 230-233
Evaluation of canal transportation after preparation with Reciproc single-file systems with or without glide path files


Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Gaziantep, Turkey

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission15-Mar-2016
Date of Decision14-Sep-2016
Date of Acceptance26-Sep-2016
Date of Web Publication24-Nov-2017
 

   Abstract 

Background: Canal transportation is a common sequel caused by rotary instruments.
Aims: The purpose of the present study is to evaluate the degree of transportation after the use of Reciproc single-file instruments with or without glide path files.
Methods: Thirty resin blocks with L-shaped canals were divided into three groups (n = 10). Group 1 - canals were prepared with Reciproc-25 file. Group 2 - glide path file-G1 was used before Reciproc. Group 3 - glide path files-G1 and G2 were used before Reciproc. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were superimposed under microscope, and resin removed from the inner and outer surfaces of the root canal was calculated throughout 10 points.
Results: Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal–Wallis test and post hoc Dunn test. For coronal and middle one-thirds, there was no significant difference among groups (P > 0.05). For apical section, transportation of Group 1 was significantly higher than other groups (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Using glide path files before Reciproc single-file system reduced the degree of apical canal transportation.

Keywords: Canal transportation; glide path file; Reciproc; resin block

How to cite this article:
Aydin U, Karataslioglu E. Evaluation of canal transportation after preparation with Reciproc single-file systems with or without glide path files. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:230-3

How to cite this URL:
Aydin U, Karataslioglu E. Evaluation of canal transportation after preparation with Reciproc single-file systems with or without glide path files. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2017 [cited 2017 Dec 17];20:230-3. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2017/20/4/230/219191

   Introduction Top


Removal of microorganisms and infected tissue remnants is the main goal of root canal treatment. This task can be achieved with chemomechanical preparation.[1] For many years, root canal preparation was performed with hand files which carry the risk of straightening root canals and resulting in complications including ledging, zipping, and canal transportation.[2] Especially, in curved canals, preserving original canal morphology and avoiding procedural errors are important projections of root canal preparation.[3]

In our day, nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems raised the quality of root canal preparation by reducing the ratio of procedural errors mentioned above.[4] The flexibility of NiTi files provides the maintenance of root canal shape and declines in the complications related to canal preparation.[5] Following the advances in NiTi technology, single-file systems were introduced to save time and to reduce treatment cost.[6],[7] These single-file systems work with either continuous rotation or reciprocation. Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) is one of these single-file instruments working with reciprocating motion and manufactured with M-wire technology, leading to increased flexibility and resistance.[8],[9] The manufacturer claims that this single-file system is reliable even in complex root canals. However, complications such as canal transportation related to Reciproc have been an issue of interest and were evaluated with different studies.[3],[6],[10],[11] While a group of studies revealed that the degree of canal transportation related to Reciproc is less than or similar to other rotary and/or reciprocating instruments,[7],[10],[11] the others found greater degree of canal transportation with Reciproc.[3],[6],[12]

The present study aimed to evaluate the degree of canal transportation related to the Reciproc files with and without glide path files using resin blocks. We hypothesized that the use 1 or 2 glide path instruments may provide to better maintain the original root canal morphology and reduce the degree of canal transportation.


   Methods Top


A total of 30 L-shaped resin blocks (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany) with sizes of 10 mm × 10 mm × 30 mm were included. For each block, canal length was 19 mm, canal taper was 0.02, apical diameter was 0.15 mm, and radius of curvature was 45°. Blocks were divided into three groups (n = 10).

Canal preparation

Group 1: Canal preparation was performed with a Reciproc-25 file with in-and-out pecking motion using special settings of electronic motor (VDW Silver Reciproc).

Group 2:First, canals were prepared with glide path file 1 (G1, N°12, 0.03 taper, Micro Mega, France) with a continuous rotation motion (400 rpm; 1.2 Ncm) and then with a Reciproc-25 file as in Group 1.

Group 3:First, canals were prepared with glide path file 1 with a continuous rotation motion (400 rpm; 1.2 Ncm) and then with glide path file 2 (G2, N°17, 0.03 taper, Micro Mega, France) with a continuous rotation motion (400 rpm; 1.2 Ncm). Final preparation was performed as in Group 1.

All instruments were used only once with a lubricant gel (Glyde; Dentsply, Maillefer) until the working length was reached by the same operator. After each instrument, canals were rinsed with 2 ml of distilled water with 27-gauge irrigation needle that was inserted as deep as possible without binding.

Before and after preparation, all blocks were imaged under a stereomicroscope (Leica MZ 12.5, Heerbrugg, Germany) [Figure 1] and [Figure 2] in the same way with a magnification of ×10. Then, images were saved as tiff format files. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were superimposed with digital image software (Adobe Photoshop CS5 Extended, Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA). After that, ten sequential circles, center of each is the apical point of canal and 1 mm away from each other, were placed over superimposed images [Figure 3]. The intersection points of circles with root canals were accepted as measuring points (Mps). The first 4 Mps from apices were considered as apical portion while Mps 5, 6, and 7 were middle portion. The last 3 Mps[8],[9],[10] were calculated as coronal portion. At each Mp, the difference between the inner thickness of removed resin material (toward furcation) and outer thickness of removed resin material (outer side of curvature) was calculated (inner-outer) with a precision of ±0.01 mm using ImageJ (1.48 version, National Institutes of Health, USA) software and recorded as the value of that Mp. Positive values represented transportation toward the furcal area of root canals while negative values represented transportation toward outer side of root canals.
Figure 1: Preinstrumentation image

Click here to view
Figure 2: Postinstrumentation image

Click here to view
Figure 3: Measuring subsequental circles; superimposition of pre- and post-instrumentation images

Click here to view


Statistical analysis was performed with Kruskal–Wallis test and post hoc Dunn test using IBM SPSS 20 (SPSS for Windows SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA) at a significance level of P < 0.05.


   Results Top


The mean amount of canal transportation of groups for apical, middle, and coronal in millimeters are represented with their standard deviations in [Table 1].
Table 1: The degree of canal transportation in each portion for all groups

Click here to view


In coronal and middle portions, the degree of transportation is not statistically different among three groups (P = 0.98 for coronal P = 0.79 for middle).

In apical portion, the degree of transportation is higher for Group 1 compared to other groups (P = 0.004) while Group 2 and Group 3 are statistically similar (P = 0.81). Using glide path files reduced transportation in apical region.

The direction of transportation was toward inner side, except the middle of Group 2 and coronal of Group 1.


   Discussion Top


The aim of this study is to evaluate the degree of canal transportation which is important in terms of cleaning and sealing of root canals. This should be achieved for the success of treatment.[13] Reciproc is a single-file system working with reciprocal motion. It rotates 150° counterclockwise and 30° clockwise. The manufacturer does not recommend a glide path before its use.[7] However, studies report that 0.08 tapered structure of the apical 3 mm of Reciproc reduces its flexibility and result in transportation particularly in the apical portion.[3],[6] The authors of the present study questioned whether a glide path preparation may reduce the risk of canal transportation, particularly in the apical one-third. In the study of Bürklein et al.,[3] it was reported that glide path files did not affect the degree of transportation. However, in the present study, using at least one glide path file reduced the degree of canal transportation in the apical one-third. The disparity in the results may be related to the taper of the glide path files. Bürklein et al. used 0.02 tapered glide path files (Dentsply, Maillefer), while in the present study, glide path preparation was performed with 0.03 tapered files. The more tapered glide path files used in the present study (0.03 tapered files) enlarged the canals more than 0.02 tapered files, and by this way, they might have provided an easier inlet of Reciproc files into canals leading to reduced enforcement and reduced transportation. However, it must be noted that if the degree of transportation exceeds 0.3 mm, it is accepted as a problem in terms of sealing.[14] In the present study, none of the mean transportation values was more than 0.1281 mm.

The present study included resin blocks to better achieve standardization, while in the previous study, extracted teeth were used. Although using resin blocks enables standardization and their transparency facilitates photographic measurements, the results of the present and similar studies must be verified with other in vitro studies including human teeth because of the different physical properties of human dentin and resin.[6]

Studies regarding the mechanical behaviors of rotary instrument found different outcomes as either the motion type[10],[15] or the taper of instruments may affect the degree of canal transportation.[3] Furthermore, canal morphology, cross-sectional geometry of instrument, and the alloy of the file[15] may also affect the degree of transportation.[16] In terms of motion type, continuous rotation - particularly with active files - may result in more transportation due to their screw-in effect.[17] On the other hand, instruments with greater tapers, especially over the apical portion, have tendency to cause more transportation resulting from decreased flexibility.[6] Thus, the previous studies could never give a certain decision whether which factor affect the shaping behaviors of the instruments. For these reasons, instead of comparing different systems, we preferred to evaluate Reciproc system - a contemporary system - which work with reciprocal motion and which can be considered as a progressive file with and without glide path files. Furthermore, in the present study, a size-25 instrument was selected because the manufacturer recommends this size for narrow and curved canals.[11] According to the results, using G-files decreased the degree of transportation. Especially, if differences in the skills of operators during daily use are considered,[18] using at least 1 glide path file seems to be beneficial to minimize transportation in curved canals.

Unlike the previous studies,[8],[19] the direction of apical canal transportation was toward inner surface in the present study. In general, rigidity of Reciproc files due to 0.08 tapered structure of apical 3 mm may result in the straightening of root canal, and thus, transportation occurs toward outer side of the canal. However, different from the previous studies, in the present study, L-shaped resin blocks were used. The authors of the present study assume that the difference in the direction of transportation may be as a result of using L-shaped canals because the degree of pressure applied by the clinician might affect the direction of transportation as the tip of this instrument is noncutting and acts a guide.[19] In the present study, gentle pecking motion was used by the same operator, and thus, transportation did not occur toward the outside in apical portion. In the study of Franco et al.,[20] after shaping root canals with three FlexMaster files serially, rotational use of files resulted in transportation toward outer canal surface different from the reciprocal use of the same files. In the light of their study, it may be assumed that for the present study, reciprocal motion may be another reason for the inner apical transportation for Group 1. For Groups 2 and 3, using G-files before Reciproc may have provided the contact of inner canal wall with the instrument more than outer wall and may be a reason for the inner apical transportation.


   Conclusion Top


Under the conditions of this in vitro study, it may be concluded that using 1 or 2 glide path files significantly reduced the degree of canal transportation in the apical portion related to Reciproc files. If the variances in the skills and procedural habits of different operators during daily use are considered, using at least 1 glide path rotary file with a taper of 0.03 may be beneficial to minimize the apical canal transportation.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Averbach RE, Kleier DJ. Clinical update on root canal disinfection. Compend Contin Educ Dent 2006;27:284, 286-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod 2010;36:904-7.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Bürklein S, Poschmann T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different nickel-titanium systems in simulated S-shaped canals with and without glide path. J Endod 2014;40:1231-4.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: A comparative study with micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37:1296-300.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997;23:503-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Saleh AM, Vakili Gilani P, Tavanafar S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2015;41:548-52.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45:449-61.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, Zgheib C, Arbab-Chirani R, Naaman A. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 2015;48:162-70.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Marzouk AM, Ghoneim AG. Computed tomographic evaluation of canal shape instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium systems. J Endod 2013;39:906-9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Hwang YH, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W, Shon WJ, et al. Shaping ability of the conventional nickel-titanium and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems: A comparative study using micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2014;40:1186-9.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2013;46:590-7.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.
Gergi R, Arbab-Chirani R, Osta N, Naaman A. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2014;40:1223-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
García M, Duran-Sindreu F, Mercadé M, Bueno R, Roig M. A comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and RaCe rotary instruments. J Endod 2012;38:990-2.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: Effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000;26:210-6.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of waveone, reciproc and oneshape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2015;48:109-14.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Critical evaluation of root canal transportation by instrumentation. Endod Topics 2013;29:110-24.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Diemer F, Calas P. Effect of pitch length on the behavior of rotary triple helix root canal instruments. J Endod 2004;30:716-8.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Generali L, Righi E, Todesca MV, Consolo U. Canal shaping with WaveOne reciprocating files: Influence of operator experience on instrument breakage and canal preparation time. Odontology 2014;102:217-22.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H, Ertas ET. Comparative study of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Endod 2014;40:852-6.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickel-titanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011;37:1398-401.  Back to cited text no. 20
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Ugur Aydin
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Gaziantep University, Sehitkamil 27060, Gaziantep
Turkey
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.219191

Rights and Permissions


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2], [Figure 3]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]



 

Top
 
 
 
  Search
 
 
    Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
    Email Alert *
    Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)  
 


    Abstract
   Introduction
   Methods
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Figures
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed87    
    Printed1    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded37    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal