Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 465
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
 


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLE  
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 153-156
Comparative evaluation of dentinal crack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and Hyflex EDM


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, India

Click here for correspondence address and email

Date of Submission28-Jul-2017
Date of Decision10-Oct-2017
Date of Acceptance20-Nov-2017
Date of Web Publication22-Mar-2018
 

   Abstract 

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare the incidence of dentinal crack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and Hyflex electrodischarge machining (HEDM).
Materials and Methods: A total of 75 extracted mandibular premolars were selected. The root canals were instrumented using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and HEDM rotary files. All roots were horizontally sectioned at 3, 6, and 9 mm from apex with slow-speed saw under water cooling. The sections were observed under a stereomicroscope at ×25 to determine the absence or presence of crack. Data were analyzed using post hoc test and one-way ANOVA.
Results: ProTaper Next and HEDM produced significantly less cracks than OneShape.
Conclusion: Within the limitation of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that nickel–titanium instruments may cause cracks on the root surface. ProTaper Next and HEDM tend to produce less number of cracks as compared to OneShape.

Keywords: Dentin cracks; Hyflex electrodischarge machining; OneShape; ProTaper Next

How to cite this article:
Das S, Pradhan PK, Lata S, Sinha SP. Comparative evaluation of dentinal crack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and Hyflex EDM. J Conserv Dent 2018;21:153-6

How to cite this URL:
Das S, Pradhan PK, Lata S, Sinha SP. Comparative evaluation of dentinal crack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and Hyflex EDM. J Conserv Dent [serial online] 2018 [cited 2019 Dec 5];21:153-6. Available from: http://www.jcd.org.in/text.asp?2018/21/2/153/228260

   Introduction Top


Technological advancement in rotary nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments has led to new design, concepts, and easier, faster, and better root canal shaping. Root canal shaping procedures and rotary instrumentation with NiTi instruments can induce crack formation.[1] Crack is defined as a defect with complete crack lines extending from inner root canal space up to the outer surface of the root.[2],[3]

Dentinal cracks or root fracture occur when the tensile stress in the root canal wall exceeds the tensile stress of dentin.[1],[4] Rotary NiTi files with large tapers can produce increased friction and stresses on the canal wall and cause dentinal cracks in root dentin.[4] ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer) is a set of rotary instruments that are designed with variable tapers and an off-centered rectangular cross-section which is made from M-wire technology.[5] OneShape (MICRO-MEGA) is a rotary NiTi single file system with variable cross-section along the entire length of instrument.

Recently, Hyflex electrodischarge machining (HEDM) (Coltene/Whaledent) files have been introduced that is manufactured by EDM process. EDM can be used to manufacture all types of conductive materials (e.g., metals, alloys, graphite, and ceramics) of any hardness with high precision. Spark initiated in this process is melting and vaporizing the material of the workpiece in its top layer.[6],[7] This innovative manufacturing process (EDM) is a noncontact machining procedure used in engineering for the manufacturing of parts that would be difficult to machine with conventional technique. The removal of material is performed by pulsating electric current discharges that flow between an electrode and the workpiece and that are immersed in a dielectric medium. The electric current partially melts and evaporates small portions of the material in a well-controlled and repeatable way. The material is therefore superficially removed leaving an isotropic surface, characterized by regularly distributed craters, resulting in superior fracture resistance and improved cutting efficiency.[8],[9] It includes three sets of instruments orifice Opner (25/0.12), glide path file (10/0.05), and shaping file (25/0.08), and three optional finishing files (40/0.04, 50/0.03, and 60/0.02). Like Hyflex CM files, HEDM files have controlled memory effect and regenerative properties.[6]

To the best our knowledge, there are no studies regarding the incidence of dentinal microcracks resulting from the use of HEDM system. Thus, the purpose of the study was to compare the incidence of cracks in root dentin after root canal instrumentation with HEDM, OneShape, and ProTaper Next system.


   Materials and Methods Top


A total of 75 extracted human mandibular premolars with mature apices and straight root canals (<5°) were selected and kept in distilled water. The root surfaces were examined under stereomicroscope to exclude external defects and cracks. Then, the teeth were decoronated with a slow speed saw under water coolant to obtain a standardized root length of 16 mm. As suggested previously,[3] a single layer of aluminum foil was used to cover the roots of the teeth, and each root was embedded into acrylic resin set in an acrylic tube. Root was removed, from tube, and the aluminum foil was removed from the root. A light-body silicon-based material was used to replace space created by aluminum foil and simulate periodontal ligament, and the root was immediately inserted into impression material. Apical 3 mm of root was exposed and immersed in water during instrumentation to prevent dehydration. Seventy-five teeth were divided into three groups of 25 teeth each. Canal length was measured by inserting a size 10 k-file into canal terminus and subtracting 1 mm from this measurement. A glide path preparation was done by 15 k-type files. Apical preparation was completed with size 25 instrument of each system. 1% sodium hypochlorite solution was used as an irrigant during instrumentation.

ProTaper Next

The root canals were instrumented using ProTaper Next files at a speed of 300 rpm and 200 g/cm torque with a torque controlled endodontic motor. The sequences were Sx,X1, and X2 in a brushing motion.

OneShape

Root canal orifices were enlarged with orifice Opner endoflare (25/0.12). Complete canal preparation was done by OneShape rotary file (25/0.06) at a speed of 400 rpm.

Hyflex electrodischarge machining

HEDM files were used at 500 rpm and at a torque of up to 2.5 Ncm. After using orifice Opner, single file 25/0.12 was used.

Sectioning and microscopic examination

Roots were sectioned perpendicular to long axis at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex using a low speed saw under water cooling. Digital images of each section were captured at ×25 magnification using a digital camera attached to a stereomicroscope. Each specimen was checked by two operators for the presence of dentinal defects. No crack was defined as root dentin devoid of any microcracks or craze lines either at the external surface of root or at the internal surface of root canal wall. Crack was defined as any lines, microcracks, or fracture observed on the slice that either extended from root canal lumen to the dentin or from outer root surface into the dentin. Data were analyzed by SPSS version 15 Software (IBM, Chicago, IL, USA) [Table 2].
Table 2: Data analysis in SPSS software

Click here to view



   Results Top


The numbers of cracks in each group are shown in [Table 1]. [Table 3] summarizes statistically significant difference among the experimental groups (P < 0.05). As shown in [Table 4], ProTaper Next and HEDM produced significantly less cracks than OneShape (P = 0.008 and 0.002, respectively). Between ProTaper Next group and HEDM group the difference is statistically insignificant.
Table 1: Dentin cracks for different instrumentation

Click here to view
Table 3: One-way ANOVA for testing the difference of mean cracks

Click here to view
Table 4: Post hoc test for pairwise comparison

Click here to view



   Discussion Top


The primary aim of chemomechanical root canal preparation includes the preservation of original course of the canal and cleaning of the entire root canal system. One common complication associated with mechanical canal preparation is vertical root fracture (VRF), which usually leads to tooth loss.[10] Various NiTi instruments with different design have been introduced, but all of them result in incomplete cracks or even VRF. Hence, such defects should be prevented. Bier et al. suggested that craze lines occurred in 4% to 16% which may develop into fractures during retreatment or after long-term functional stresses such as chewing. This proves that root canal preparation with NiTi rotary systems and every following additional procedure in endodontics as obturation and retreatment with rotary system can create fractures or craze lines.[1]

According to our study, incidence of crack observed in root dentin was greater after instrumentation with OneShape as compared to HEDM and ProTaper Next. Similar results were found by Liu et al.;[11] they reported cracks in 35% of roots instrumented with OneShape.

The design of file may affect shaping forces on root dentin; these forces may cause root fracture.[12],[13] ProTaper Next has a rectangular cross-section design, increased and decreased tapering over entire length. Off-centered rectangular design of ProTaper Next may have contributed to less number of cracks than OneShape. This design generates a swaggering motion, which decreases screw effect, dangerous taper lock, and torque on the file.[3],[5],[14] OneShape has asymmetrical cross-section over entire length and variable pitch, noncutting safety tip.[15],[16]

HEDM files are produced by control memory treatment just like Hyflex CM file. EDM process created a rough and hard surface that could improve cutting efficiency of these files. HEDM files have tip size of 25 (0.08) taper contrast to OneShape and ProTaper Next 25 (0.06). The taper is constant in apical 4 mm of instrument but reduces progressively up to 0.04 in coronal portion. This new file has three different cross-sections over the entire length of working part (rectangular) in apical part, trapezoidal cross-section in middle part, triangular in coronal part to increase fracture resistance, and cutting efficiency.[6] Different speed and torque were used for the three-file system which may be a limitation of the study. According to Peter et al.,[17] increased rotational speed is associated with increased cutting efficiency. HEDM files are more resistant to cyclic fatigue,[6] so recommended speed is 500 rpm which is higher than other two files tested in this study. Thus, HEDM file could result in less cracks than other two files. Previous studies stated that the tip design of rotary instrument, cross-sectional geometry, constant or variable pitch, and taper, flute form could be related to crack formation.[1],[13],[18] In contrast, HEDM having more taper (0.08) than other two files results in less crack. This may be due to the manufacturing process.

All the three tested instruments have variable pitch and noncutting tip. ProTaper Next and HEDM have rectangular cross-sectional design.[6] OneShape has almost triangular cross-sectional design.[15] Thus, this difference in design could be attributed to more cracks in OneShape. Previous studies suggested that instruments manufactured from M-wire alloy and controlled memory NiTi wire have more flexibility than conventional NiTi wire.[17],[19],[20] Hence, ProTaper Next and HEDM manufactured from these wires would have contributed to less number of cracks than OneShape.

One of the limitations of this study was application of elastomeric material to simulate the periodontal ligament. Adorno et al.[21] suggested that elastomeric material may collapse and permit direct tooth to acrylic contact; moreover, clinical situation is more complex because the presence of periodontal ligament influences the distribution of stresses.


   Conclusion Top


Within the limitation of this in vitro study, it can be concluded that NiTi instruments may cause cracks on the root surface. ProTaper Next and HEDM tend to produce less number of cracks as compared to OneShape. Further, research is required to assess the effect of these instruments on crack formation.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
   References Top

1.
Bier CA, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod 2009;35:236-8.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]    
2.
Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schäfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: Reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2013;39:501-4.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Li SH, Lu Y, Song D, Zhou X, Zheng QH, Gao Y, et al. Occurrence of dentinal microcracks in severely curved root canals with ProTaper universal, WaveOne, and ProTaper next file systems. J Endod 2015;41:1875-9.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Dane A, Capar ID, Arslan H, Akçay M, Uysal B. Effect of different torque settings on crack formation in root dentin. J Endod 2016;42:304-6.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Ruddle CJ. The proTaper endodontic system: Geometries, features, and guidelines for use. Dent Today 2001;20:60-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.
Pedullà E, Lo Savio F, Boninelli S, Plotino G, Grande NM, La Rosa G, et al. Torsional and cyclic fatigue resistance of a new nickel-titanium instrument manufactured by electrical discharge machining. J Endod 2016;42:156-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Theisen W, Schuermann A. Electro discharge machining of nickel-titanium shape memory alloys. Mater Sci Eng A 2004;378:200-4.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
Pirani C, Iacono F, Generali L, Sassatelli P, Nucci C, Lusvarghi L, et al. HyFlex EDM: Superficial features, metallurgical analysis and fatigue resistance of innovative electro discharge machined NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2016;49:483-93.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]    
9.
Payal HS, Rajesh C, Sarabjeet S. Analysis of electro discharged machined surface of EN-31 tool steel. J Sci Ind Res 2008;67:1072-7.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Tamse A, Fuss Z, Lustig J, Kaplavi J. An evaluation of endodontically treated vertically fractured teeth. J Endod 1999;25:506-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, Wu MK, Shemesh H. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013;39:1054-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Lam PP, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Fracture strength of roots following canal preparation by hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2014;37:997-1001.  Back to cited text no. 12
    
13.
Kim HC, Lee MH, Yum J, Versluis A, Lee CJ, Kim BM, et al. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod 2010;36:1195-9.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.
Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Uysal B. Effects of ProTaper universal, ProTaper next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod 2014;40:1482-4.  Back to cited text no. 14
[PUBMED]    
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.
Dhingra A, Ruhal N, Miglani A. Evaluation of single file systems Reciproc, Oneshape, and WaveOne using cone beam computed tomography – An in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:ZC30-4.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Peters OA, Morgental RD, Schulze KA, Paqué F, Kopper PM, Vier-Pelisser FV, et al. Determining cutting efficiency of nickel-titanium coronal flaring instruments used in lateral action. Int Endod J 2014;47:505-13.  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.
Yoldas O, Yilmaz S, Atakan G, Kuden C, Kasan Z. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod 2012;38:232-5.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.
Pereira ES, Peixoto IF, Viana AC, Oliveira II, Gonzalez BM, Buono VT, et al. Physical and mechanical properties of a thermomechanically treated NiTi wire used in the manufacture of rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2012;45:469-74.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.
Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y, Haapasalo M. Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011;37:997-1001.  Back to cited text no. 20
    
21.
Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Suda H. Crack initiation on the apical root surface caused by three different nickel-titanium rotary files at different working lengths. J Endod 2011;37:522-5.  Back to cited text no. 21
    

Top
Correspondence Address:
Dr. Prasanti Kumari Pradhan
Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_219_17

Rights and Permissions



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4]



 

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
    Materials and Me...
   Results
   Discussion
   Conclusion
    References
    Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1952    
    Printed25    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded346    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal