Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 1010
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 52-56

Resistance to fracture of teeth instrumented using novel EndoStar E5 rotary versus ProTaper NEXT and WaveOne file systems


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
3 Department of Dentistry, Sir H. N. Reliance Foundation Hospital, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India
4 Department of Surgical Sciences, College of Dentistry, Ajman University, Ajman, UAE

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Ajinkya M Pawar
Y-10/155, Government Colony, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400 051, Maharashtra
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_216_16

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The current study compared the fracture resistance of samples instrumented by two rotary files and a reciprocating file, obturated with gutta-percha and AH Plus. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 freshly extracted mandibular premolar teeth with single roots and single canals were acquired and decoronated at or below the cementoenamel junction. The samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 15). Group 1 control (noninstrumented/obturated), and for Groups 2–4 root canal instrumentation was done by EndoStar E5 (EE5), ProTaper NEXT (PTN), and WaveOne, respectively. Following instrumentation, the samples were obturated using gutta-percha cones and AH Plus sealer using lateral compaction. A week later, vertical load was applied to the specimen's canal in each group until fracture. The loads required for fracture were recorded and statistically analyzed. Results: The mean loads required to fracture (Newton; N) for the four groups were; 388.54 (±29.93), 310.35 (±26.05), 328.40 (±20.67), and 278.54 (±34.16). The loads exhibited highly significant difference (P < 0.0001; analysis variance). The following Tukey's post hoc test confirmed, both samples in Groups 2 and 3 required similar loads for fracture (P > 0.05) and significantly higher than Group 4 (P < 0.01). Conclusion: The samples instrumented by EE5 and PTN exhibit similar fracture resistance.


[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
    Viewed1457    
    Printed15    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded163    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal