|Year : 2015 | Volume
| Issue : 6 | Page : 713-717
Shaping ability of two M-wire and two traditional nickel-titanium instrumentation systems in S-shaped resin canals
KT Ceyhanli1, A Kamaci2, M Taner2, N Erdilek2, D Celik1
1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ege University, Izmir, Turkey
|Date of Acceptance||24-Feb-2015|
|Date of Web Publication||20-Aug-2015|
K T Ceyhanli
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Karadeniz Technical University, Trabzon 61080
Source of Support: Nil., Conflict of Interest: None
| Abstract|| |
Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping effects of two M-wire and two traditional nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary systems in simulated S-shaped resin canals.
Subjects and Methods: Forty simulated S-shaped canals in resin blocks were instrumented with two traditional (ProTaper, Sendoline S5) and two M-wire (WaveOne, GT series X) NiTi systems according to the manufacturers' instructions. Ten resin blocks were used for each system. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were captured using a stereomicroscope and superimposed with an image program. Canal transportation, material removal, and aberrations were evaluated and recorded as numeric parameters.
Statistical Analysis Used: Data were analyzed using one-way ANOVA and post-hocTukey tests with a 95% confidence interval.
Results:There were significant differences between systems in terms of transportation and material removal (P < 0.05). Coronal danger zone was the most common aberration.
Conclusions: Within the limits of thisex vivostudy, it was found that the manufacturing methods (M-wire or traditional NiTi) and kinematics (rotary or reciprocating motion) did not affect the shaping abilities of the systems. The extended file designs of highly tapered NiTi systems (ProTaper, WaveOne) resulted in greater deviations from the original root canal trace and more material removal when compared to less tapered systems (Sendoline S5, GT series X).
Keywords: Canal transportation, endodontic instruments, M-wire, nickel-titanium, S-curvature
|How to cite this article:|
Ceyhanli K T, Kamaci A, Taner M, Erdilek N, Celik D. Shaping ability of two M-wire and two traditional nickel-titanium instrumentation systems in S-shaped resin canals. Niger J Clin Pract 2015;18:713-7
|How to cite this URL:|
Ceyhanli K T, Kamaci A, Taner M, Erdilek N, Celik D. Shaping ability of two M-wire and two traditional nickel-titanium instrumentation systems in S-shaped resin canals. Niger J Clin Pract [serial online] 2015 [cited 2021 Mar 4];18:713-7. Available from: https://www.njcponline.com/text.asp?2015/18/6/713/163294
| Introduction|| |
Instrumentation is an important part of endodontic treatment that aims to provide an ideal canal shape, a continuously tapered funnel shape with the diameter increasing from the apex to the canal orifice, to facilitate irrigation and obturation. Respecting the original canal shape is also important in order to avoid canal aberrations, such as transportation, ledge, zip, and elbow., The prevalence of multiple curved canals is high in human teeth, and owing to the high complexity of canals with multiple curves in different planes, endodontic cleaning and shaping procedures become very difficult within the aforementioned norms., Standardized simulated S-shaped (double curvature) resin blocks have been used to evaluate the shaping abilities of endodontic files in double curves., These resin blocks allow the visualization of intracanal changes and reproducibility when compared to natural teeth.
Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instrumentation systems have been shown to facilitate shaping and decrease procedural errors compared with hand instrumentation techniques., There have been many improvements in file designs, manufacturing methods, and preparation techniques regarding rotary endodontic instruments made of NiTi alloy. Recently, a special NiTi wire called M-Wire (Sportswire LLCi Langely, OK, USA) was improved through a proprietary thermo-mechanical processing procedure. Studies have reported that this M-Wire technology provides more flexibility and resistance to cyclic fatigue as compared to non-M-wire NiTi instruments.,
New production methods and kinematics of NiTi rotary-reciprocating instruments may contribute to the development of canal preparation. However, there is limited information about the differences between the shaping effects of M-wire NiTi and those of traditional NiTi, and no studies have been performed on S-shaped resin blocks. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the shaping effects of two M-wires (WaveOne reciprocating, GT series X) and two traditional NiTi (ProTaper Universal [PTU], Sendoline S5) reciprocating-rotary systems in simulated S-shaped resin canals.
The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between two M-wire and two traditional NiTi instrumentation systems in terms of shaping effects in severely curved S-shaped resin blocks.
| Subjects and Methods|| |
Forty simulated S-shaped canals in resin blocks (Endo Training-Bloc, 0.02 Taper; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) were used for the study. The diameter and taper of the canals were equivalent to those of a standard size 15 instrument. The canal lengths were 17 mm, and the canals began after a 4.5 mm conical area. Before instrumentation, working lengths (WLs) were established to be 1 mm short of the apical end of resin canal using a size 15 K file. The resin blocks were randomly divided into four groups, and each group was instrumented with a ProTaper Universal (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Sendoline S5 (Sendoline, Täby, Sweden), or GT series X (GT-X, Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, Oklahoma, USA) NiTi system by an experienced operator using the crown-down method. The resin canals were irrigated with 2 ml distilled water after each instrument, and a final flush with 5 ml distilled water was performed as well. The PTU and WaveOne instrumentations were finished with F1 and small file (0.06/21), respectively. The apical preparation size was set to 0.04/20 for the Sendoline S5 and GT-X groups. The instrumentations were made according to manufacturers' instructions [Table 1]. There was an apical binding to resin canals with a size 20 standard tapered K-file at WL after preparations. Therefore, the canals were accepted as fully shaped with tapered size 20 (21 for WaveOne) instruments.
|Table 1: Instrument sequences of the systems. WaveOne electric motor was used for instrumentations|
Click here to view
The shaping effects of the instrumentation systems were analyzed using stereoscopic images of the resin blocks [Figure 1]. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were captured under a stereomicroscope (Leica, Weltzler, Germany) connected to a CCD camera (Leica, Weltzler, Germany) and superimposed with the Adobe Photoshop image program (version 5.0, Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA, USA). A silicon template fitted to the stage plate of the stereomicroscope was created to provide image capture at the same position. Three circles were made on each resin block to serve as reference points for image superimposition. Canal transportation was calculated as the distance (in m8illimeters) from the pre- to the post-instrumented canal wall and measured in a plane perpendicular to the resin block's long axis at eight positions (1 mm intervals) on both the left and right proximal sides of the simulated canal. Levels 1–4 represented the apical curvature and levels 4–8 represented the coronal curvature. The left side of the resin block, "L," represented the inner aspect of the apical curve and the outer aspect of the coronal curve. The right side, "R," represented the reverse. Measurements were made using ImageJ 1.38x (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA) computer software with a ×2 magnification.
|Figure 1: Superimposed stereoscopic images of the instrumentation systems. (a) ProTaper Universal, (b) Sendoline S5, (c) WaveOne, (d) GT series X|
Click here to view
The final layered canal images were randomly presented for evaluation by an experienced clinician blinded to which instrument group was used. Transportation with direction, material removal, centering ratio, and aberrations (ledge, zip + elbow, file separation) were evaluated for changes and assessed according to following parameters:
Levels 1–8 indicate the measurement levels.
Amount of transportation measured on the left side of the resin canal.
Amount of transportation measured from the right side of the resin canal.
Total amount of transportation, calculated as the difference between transportation left (TL) and transportation right (TR). The absolute value of the calculation was recorded, along with the direction (left or right).
The total resin removal from two aspects, calculated as TL + TR.
- The ledge: Defined as irregular resin removal from the outer canal wall, associated with a narrower region more coronal from the canal terminus
- The apical zip: Irregular widening of the outer wall near the canal terminus with excessive resin removal, associated with a narrower region coronally
- "Danger zone" widening: Excessive widening of the inner canal wall of the curvatures
- Intracanal file separation.
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 16.0 (Chicago Inc., USA) software. The material removal, transportation, and centering ratio data were analyzed. One-way ANOVA and post-hocTukey tests were used for statistical analysis. A confidence interval of 95% was used after performing a normality test to determine the normality of the studied variables.
| Results|| |
Transportation was evaluated according to level and aspect. [Figure 2] shows the amount of transportation generated by different rotary systems. There were significant differences for levels 3, 6–8 (P < 0.05). The PTU and WaveOne systems transported the resin canal significantly more than the GT-X system for level 3 (P = 0.002 for PTU-GTX, P = 0.04 for WaveOne-GTX) and level 6 (P = 0.037 for PTU-GTX, P = 0.003 for WaveOne-GTX), respectively. The WaveOne system generated significantly more transportation than the Sendoline S5 and GT-X systems for level 7 (P < 0.001 for both comparisons). There were significant differences between systems for level 8; the PTU system transported more of the resin canal than Sendoline S5 (P = 0.005), and the WaveOne system generated more transportation than the Sendoline S5 (P < 0.001) and GT-X (P < 0.001) systems.
|Figure 2 : Amount and direction of transportation with the instrumentation systems. The measurements were made at eight different levels. "L" and "R" refers to the two sides of the resin blocks|
Click here to view
There were significant differences for levels 3–8 (P < 0.05) [Table 1]. The WaveOne system removed significantly more material than the other systems for all of these levels (P < 0.05). The PTU system removed significantly more material than Sendoline S5 for level 4, as well as more material than the Sendoline S5 and GT-X for levels 5–8 (P < 0.05). There was no significant difference between Sendoline S5 and GT-X for all levels. The inner aspects of apical and coronal curvatures (apical left, coronal right) were the sites of excessive material removal for all systems. There was a tendency to change curvatures into straight zones, and this tendency increased with the taper of the system [Figure 1].
There were no file separations for the evaluated systems. There were coronal danger zones for all evaluated systems (PTU: 5, WaveOne: 8, Sendoline S5: 3, GT-X: 4). Apical danger zones were less than those of coronal ones (PTU: 1, WaveOne: 1, Sendoline S5: 1, GT-X: 0). There were only 2 zip formations among all instrumented canals (WaveOne: 1, Sendoline S5: 1).
| Discussion|| |
In this study, the effects of four instrumentation systems that have different designs, manufacturing methods, number of files, and kinematics (continuous rotation, reciprocating motion) on canal transportation and volume of resin removal were compared. It is known that the hardness and other physical specifications of resin canal walls differ from those of the human root canal walls. It has been suggested that micro–computed tomographic three-dimensional analysis is more discriminative of changes in the canal spaces associated with repeated instrument use than photographic measurements. Volumetric three-dimensional analysis is determinant in the study of the variability of anatomy of the human teeth with three-dimensional development of the canal path. However, superimposed two-dimensional images (photographs, digital radiographs) can give comparable results for evaluation of shaping effects of the instruments., In this study, the evaluation of the shaping effects of instruments was done using superimposed two-dimensional photographs of the simulated resin blocks. Resin blocks allow the visualization of intracanal changes, reproducibility, and the standardization of root canal morphology when compared to natural teeth., Root canals of human teeth represent certain irregularities, such as multiple curvatures in different planes., S-shaped resin blocks can simulate this challenge in a standardized condition for NiTi systems. Moreover, the use of simulated canals in resin blocks has the opportunity to standardize the research method and to exclude parameters that could influence the preparation outcome.
The elimination of bacteria within the root canal system is one of the main goals of root canal treatment. These bacteria must be removed with a chemo-mechanical action of irrigants and instrumentation procedures. However, almost all published findings agree that increasing the curve of the root canal or the diameter of the master instrument that prepares the full WL will result in greater transportation, straightening, and aberration., According to Ruddle, a canal is accepted as fully shaped and ready for obturation following the use of F1 ProTaper, if a size 20 standard hand file (K-file or hedstroem) is snug at length. Although tactile sensibility is not a sufficient determinant for apical preparation size of human teeth, it can be used for standard round shaped resin canals.
There were significant differences for levels 3, 6–8 in terms of transportation (P < 0.05). All instrumentation systems caused transportation, especially towards the inner part of the curvatures, and the amount was increased synchronously with the cross-section of the instrument. This is due to the increased straightening tendencies of the instruments associated with the taper. The highly tapered NiTi systems (PTU, WaveOne) resulted in greater deviations from the original root canal trace when compared to less tapered Sendoline S5 and GT-X systems in the present study. Madureira et al.found increased transportation when flexibility decreased due to greater cross-sectional metal mass for a single manufactured metal. Although proprietary thermo-mechanical processes applied to WaveOne and GT-X systems have been shown to increase cyclic fatigue resistance, there was no significant difference in terms of the transportation of these instruments when compared with traditional NiTi PTU and Sendoline S5 systems in the present study.
There were significant differences between levels 3–8 in terms of material removal. WaveOne and PTU systems demonstrated excessive material removal and transportation when compared to other less tapered systems (Sendoline S5, GT-X). WaveOne has a modified, convex, triangular cross-section with radial lands at the tip and a convex triangular cross-section in the middle and coronal portion of the instrument, similar to the PTU instruments. In their study Capar et al. compared the similar tapered (0.08) instruments (OneShape, PTU, ProTaper Next, Reciproc, TF Adaptive, and WaveOne) with different kinematics for volumetric changes, the Resiproc instrument removed more dentin than ProTaper, whereas WaveOne exhibited similar performance with Reciproc and PTU. In the present study, when transportation is considered, there were no significant differences between the PTU F1 and WaveOne small file, but there were significant differences in terms of material removal. Jeon et al.compared Reciproc and WaveOne and found that more repetitive pecking motions at the WL resulted in a significant change in the apical preparation size for both instrumentation systems. Shaping the resin canal with the single small file of the WaveOne system requires the more repetitive use of an aggressively tapered single instrument than the sequential files (SX, S1, S2, F1) of the PTU system. Increasing core diameter and repeated use may be reasons for the greater material removal generated by the WaveOne system in the present study. The Sendoline S5 and GT-X systems had similar shaping abilities and removed less material than the other more highly tapered systems. This finding can be attributed to similar core diameters and kinematics of these instruments.
Aberrations in the form of coronal danger zones were especially common at higher levels (levels 6–8). This can be attributed to decreased flexibility of the instruments with the increasing core diameters. There were 5, 8, 3, and 4 coronal danger zones for the PTU, WaveOne, Sendoline S5, and GT-X systems, respectively. The coronal danger zone incidence increased with the increasing core diameters of the instruments. The WaveOne system caused the highest number of coronal danger zones. This finding can be attributed to its swift approach towards the apex using only a single file and the repeated use of this instrument, as mentioned, for material removal.
Within the limitations of thisex vivostudy, there was no statistically significant difference between the shaping ability of the M-wire and traditional NiTi systems. Therefore, the null hpothesis was accepted. The highly tapered NiTi systems (PTU, WaveOne) resulted in greater deviations from the original root canal trace when compared to less tapered systems (Sendoline S5, GT-X). The WaveOne system removed more material than the other systems, probably due to the increasing core diameter of the small file and its repeated use.
| References|| |
Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269-96.
Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod 1995;21:173-6.
Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995;21:146-51.
Lee JK, Ha BH, Choi JH, Heo SM, Perinpanayagam H. Quantitative three-dimensional analysis of root canal curvature in maxillaryfirst molars using micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2006;32:941-5.
Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:228-33.
Bryant ST, Thompson SA, al-Omari MA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments with ISO sized tips in simulated root canals: Part 2. Int Endod J 1998;31:282-9.
Berutti E, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, Chiandussi G, Pera F, Migliaretti G, et al.
Use of nickel-titanium rotary PathFile to create the glide path: Comparison with manual preflaring in simulated root canals. J Endod 2009;35:408-12.
Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975;1:255-62.
Peters OA, Laib A, Göhring TN, Barbakow F. Changes in root canal geometry after preparation assessed by high-resolution computed tomography. J Endod 2001;27:1-6.
Hülsmann M, Schade M, Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO 642 and Quantec SC rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2001;34:538-46.
Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, Clark WA, Kovarik L, Buie C, et al.
Metallurgical characterization of a new nickel-titanium wire for rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod 2009;35:1589-93.
Gao Y, Gutmann JL, Wilkinson K, Maxwell R, Ammon D. Evaluation of the impact of raw materials on the fatigue and mechanical properties of ProFile Vortex rotary instruments. J Endod 2012;38:398-401.
Ounsi HF, Franciosi G, Paragliola R, Al-Hezaimi K, Salameh Z, Tay FR, et al.
Comparison of two techniques for assessing the shaping efficacy of repeatedly used nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011;37:847-50.
Ceyhanli KT, Erdilek N, Tatar I, Cetintav B. Comparative micro-computed tomography evaluation of apical root canal transportation with the use of ProTaper, RaCe and Safesider systems in human teeth. Aust Endod J 2014;40:12-6.
Hülsmann M. Research that matters – Canal preparation, retreatment and working length studies. Int Endod J 2013;46:293-5.
Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: A review. J Endod 2004;30:559-67.
Celik D, Tasdemir T, Er K. Comparative study of 6 rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. J Endod 2013;39:278-82.
Thompson M, Sidow SJ, Lindsey K, Chuang A, McPherson JC 3rd
. Evaluation of a new filing system's ability to maintain canal morphology. J Endod 2014;40:867-70.
Lim KC, Webber J. The validity of simulated root canals for the investigation of the prepared root canal shape. Int Endod J 1985;18:240-6.
Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, Raes H, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of GTTM Rotary Files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 2002;35:607-14.
Siqueira JF Jr, Lima KC, Magalhães FA, Lopes HP, de Uzeda M. Mechanical reduction of the bacterial population in the root canal by three instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1999;25:332-5.
Bryant ST, Dummer PM, Pitoni C, Bourba M, Moghal S. Shaping ability of. 04 and. 06 taper ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 1999;32:155-64.
Tasdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, Unal O. Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J 2005;38:402-8.
Ruddle CJ. The ProTaper technique: Endodontics made easier. Dent Today 2001;20:58-64, 66.
Ceyhanli KT, Turkun M, Erdilek N, Peskersoy C, Kose T. Evaluation of the apical adaptation performance of various root canal instruments. Eur J Dent 2013;7:S41-4.
Madureira RG, Forner Navarro L, Llena MC, Costa M. Shaping ability of nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2010;109:e136-44.
Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L, De-Deus G, Tassani S, Pécora JD, et al.
Micro-computed tomography study of oval-shaped canals prepared with the self-adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper universal systems. J Endod 2013;39:1060-6.
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.
Jeon HJ, Paranjpe A, Ha JH, Kim E, Lee W, Kim HC. Apical enlargement according to different pecking times at working length using reciprocating files. J Endod 2014;40:281-4.
[Figure 1], [Figure 2]
|This article has been cited by|
||Impact of new cross-sectional designs on the shaping ability of rotary NiTi instruments in S-shaped canals
| ||David Donnermeyer,Anne Viedenz,Edgar Schäfer,Sebastian Bürklein |
| ||Odontology. 2019; |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Shaping Ability of Superelastic and Controlled Memory Nickel-Titanium File Systems: An In Vitro Study
| ||Raidan A. Ba-Hattab,Dieter Pahncke |
| ||International Journal of Dentistry. 2018; 2018: 1 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in simulated 3D-printed root canal models
| ||David Christofzik,Andreas Bartols,Mahmoud Khaled Faheem,Doreen Schroeter,Birte Groessner-Schreiber,Christof E. Doerfer,Cyril Charles |
| ||PLOS ONE. 2018; 13(8): e0201129 |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|
||Shaping ability of protaper next compared with waveone in late-model three-dimensional printed teeth
| ||Zhi Cui,Zhao Wei,Minquan Du,Ping Yan,Han Jiang |
| ||BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18(1) |
|[Pubmed] | [DOI]|