TRUShape Versus XP-endo Shaper: A Micro-computed Tomographic Assessment and Comparative Study of the Shaping Ability-An In Vitro Study.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shaping ability of XP-endo Shaper (XP; FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) and TRUShape (TS; Dentsply/Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) during the preparation of moderated curved root canals using micro-computed tomographic imaging. METHODS: Twenty human maxillary premolars with 2 roots were randomly separated into 2 groups of 10 teeth, which were scanned before and after root canal preparation using the SkyScan 1275 X-ray microtomograph (Bruker micro-CT, Kontich, Belgium) at a nominal resolution of <4 µm. Premolars and irrigant were maintained at 37° before and during preparation; group 1 was treated using XP and group 2 with TS. After preparation, researchers measured the amount of dentin removed, untreated superficies of canal walls, root canal volume, degree of canal transportation, and centering ability. Values of central tendency and dispersion were calculated using Statgraphics Centurion XV software (StatPoint Technologies, Inc, Warrenton, VA); means and median were compared using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon test. The level of significance was set at 5% (P < .05). RESULTS: No significant statistical differences were observed between the 2 groups in shaping ability, untreated superficies of canal walls, degree of canal transportation, and centering ability (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Instrumentation of moderately curved root canals using the XP single file and the TS file system were equally effective. XP and TS maintained the original anatomy of the root canals and showed a similar percentage of untreated canal walls, centered ability, and minimal apical transportation.

Conformación de conductos radiculares con sistemas reciprocantes por alumnos de grado: estudio in vitro de la incidencia de fractura / Shaping root canals with reciprocating files by undergraduate students: an in vitro study of fracture frequency

Objetivos: En la práctica clínica, la separación de un instrumento rotatorio de níquel- titanio (NiTi) puede comprometer el resultado del tratamiento de conductos. Ningún estudio ha evaluado la incidencia de fractura de instrumentos reciprocantes cuando son utilizados en dientes humanos extraídos por operadores inexpertos. Por lo tanto, el objetivo de este estudio fue evaluar la incidencia de fractura de los instrumentos ProTaper Universal, WaveOne y Reciproc cuando son utilizados por operadores inexpertos en dientes extraídos. Metodología: Se instrumentaron 240 conductos mesiales de molares mandibulares (80 por grupo) con un ángulo de curvatura entre 20 y 45 grados, utilizando rotación continua (Grupo A: instrumentos ProTaper) y rotación reciprocante (grupo B: Reciproc, y grupo C: WaveOne). Todos los tratamientos de conductos fueron realizados por 120 operadores sin experiencia (estudiantes de tercer año de Odontología). Resultados: Durante la preparación de los 240 conductos curvos no se observó ninguna fractura en los Grupos B y C (Reciproc y WaveOne), mientras que en el Grupo A (ProTaper), se fracturaron 10 instrumentos rotatorio de Níquel Titanio. La prueba de Fisher reveló diferencias estadísticas con respecto a esta variable entre los grupos (p = 0,0001). Conclusiones: Según nuestros resultados los dos sistemas de lima única reciprocantes usados en este estudio son mas seguros que el sistema ProTaper

Purpose: In clinical practice, nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instrument separation can compromise the outcome of root canal treatment. No studies have assessed the incidence of fracture of reciprocating instruments when used on extracted human teeth by inexperienced operators. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the incidence of fracture of ProTaper, WaveOne, and Reciproc instruments when used by novice operators on extracted teeth. Methods: Instrumentation was performed on 240 mesial mandibular molar root canals (80 per group) with an angle of curvature ranged from 20 to 45 degrees using continuous rotation (group A: ProTaper instruments) and reciprocating rotation (group B: Reciproc, and group C: WaveOne instruments). Root canal treatments were performed by 120 inexperienced operators (third-year dental students). Results: During the preparation of the 240 curved of the mandibular no instrument fracture was observed in Groups B and C (Reciproc and WaveOne group), whereas 10 Ni-Ti rotary instruments fractured in Group A (ProTaper group). Fisher´s exact test revealed statistical differences with regard to this variable between the groups (p=0.0001). Conclusions: According to our results the 2 types of single-file reciprocating instrument systems used in this study are safer than ProTaper System