Influence of different working lengths on the shaping ability of Reciproc Blue in the apical third and apical foramen: a micro-computed tomographic study

Aim: This study aimed to assess the shaping ability of Reciproc Blue in the apical third and apical foramen of moderately curved canals at different working lengths (WLs), by micro-computed tomography. Methods: Thirty-six mesial roots (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals) were included, each with 2 separate root canals and independent apical foramina, according to type IV of Vertucci's classification of first and second mandibular molars. The canals were instrumented at three different WLs: G-1, 1mm short of the major apical foramen; G0, at the major apical foramen; G+1, 1mm beyond the major apical foramen. The groups were assessed for changes in root canal volume and untouched wall area in the apical third. Groups G0 and G+1 were also compared for percentage of untouched walls at the apical foramen. One-way ANOVA (post hoc Tukey test) and Student's t-test adopted a 5% level of significance. Results: Root canal volumes (mm3) in the apical third were 22.86±10.46, 44.48±24.91, and 55.71±21.32 in G-1, G0 and G+1, respectively. G-1 volume following instrumentation increased significantly less than that of G0 or G+1 (P>.05); G0 did not differ from G+1. The percentage of untouched wall area in the apical third did not differ among the three groups (P>.05). G0 and G+1 did not differ regarding untouched walls in the major apical foramem walls. Conclusion: Extending the WL from 1mm short of the apical foramen to a point at and beyond the WL increases the apical third volume without increasing the prepared area. Untouched surface areas of the apical foramen were not modified by instrumentation at or beyond the foramen

Reciprocating Kinematics of X-Smart Plus, VDW Silver and, iRoot Endodontic Motors: A Comparison Between Real and Set Values

Abstract This study assessed 3 endodontic motors, X-Smart Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), VDW.Silver Reciproc (VDW GmbH, München, Germany) and, iRoot (Bassi Endodontics, Belo Horizonte, Brazil) in 2 different reciprocating settings. The movements evaluated were 170° in counter-clockwise (CCW) and 50° in clockwise (CW) at 350 RPM, and 150° CCW and 30° CW at 300 RPM. For the X-Smart Plus and VDW Silver the settings used were the ones in the motor library. For the iRoot, the motor was adjusted to the angles of the study. A customized optic target was attached to the contra-angle of the motor and the movements were recorded with a high-resolution camera (K2 DistaMaxTM Long-Distance Microscope System, Infinity Photo-Optical Company, Colorado, EUA) at 2,400 frames per second (FPS). The images were analyzed with the Vision Research software (Inc. Headquarters, Wayne, New Jersey, EUA). The following kinematic parameters were assessed: CCW angle, CW angle, speed (RPM) at both directions, and, standstill time at each change of directions. The Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Kruskal-Wallis (method of Dunn) were used at a significant level of 5%. There was no statistically significant difference among the motors at the 150°/30° setting (P > .05); the iRoot was the least reliable at the 170°/50° setting for CCW angle, speed, and net angle parameters (P < 0.05). The standstill time of all motors in both directions was identical. None of the motors were able to reproduce faithfully the set movements. The iRoot motor presented a higher discrepancy when compared to X-Smart and VDW Silver.

Resumo Este estudo avaliou 3 motores endodônticos, X-Smart Plus (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Suíça), VDW.Silver Reciproc (VDW GmbH, Munique, Alemanha) e iRoot (Bassi Endodontics, Belo Horizonte, Brasil) em 2 diferentes ajustes de movimento reciprocante. Os movimentos analisados foram: 170° em sentido anti-horário (CCW) e 50° em sentido horário (CW) a 350 RPM, e 150° CCW e 30° CW a 300 RPM. Para os motores X-Smart Plus e VDW Silver os ajustes usados foram os que se apresentam nos ajustes pré-definidos dos motores. Para o iRoot o motor foi ajustado para os ângulos do estudo. Um alvo ótico customizado foi preso ao contra ângulo do motor e os movimentos foram gravados com uma câmara de alto resolução (K2 DistaMaxTM Long-Distance Microscope System, Infinity Photo-Optical Company, Colorado, EUA) a 2.400 quadros por segundo (FPS). As imagens foram analisadas com o sotware Vision Research (Inc. Headquarters, Wayne, Nova Jersey, USA). Os seguintes parâmetros de cinemática foram avaliados: ângulo anti-horário, ângulo horário, ângulo líquido, velocidade (RPM) em ambas direções e tempo de parada a cada mudança de direção. O Coeficiente de Correlação Intraclasse (ICC) e o teste de Kruskal-Wallis (método de Dunn) foram usados com nível de significâncias de 5%. Não houve diferença estatisticamente significante entre os motores no ajuste de 150°/30° (P > .05); o motor iRoot foi o menos confiável no ajuste de 170°/50° para o ângulo anti-horário, velocidade e ângulo líquido (P < 0.05). O tempo de parada em todos os motores foi idêntico em ambas as direções. Nenhum dos motores foi capaz de reproduzir fielmente os movimentos. O motor iRoot apresentou maior discrepância quando comparado com o X-Smart Plus e VDW Silver.

Separation of Nickel-Titanium Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments: A Mini-Review of Clinical Studies.

OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to evaluate clinical studies that assessed separated NiTi rotary and reciprocating instruments. DESIGN AND METHODS: This review assessed clinical studies involving treatments performed by undergraduate students, graduate students, and endodontic specialists. This review evaluated studies using rotary instruments, reciprocating instruments, and hybrid techniques. The number of uses of the different NiTi rotary and reciprocating systems was also assessed. RESULTS: The incidence of separation for rotary instruments ranged from 0% to 23%. Rotary instruments were used from 1 to 50 times depending on the instrument and tooth type. The lowest rate of incidence separation for rotary instruments was obtained by undergraduate students, using a hybrid technique. The separation incidence for reciprocating instruments ranged from 0% to 1.71%. Reciprocating instruments were mostly single-used; one study reported their use up to 3 times. Separation rate in reciprocating instruments was similar in single-use or in multiple uses 0.2%. CONCLUSIONS: Separation of instruments has dropped recently and seems to be a minor problem in current Endodontics. Multiple uses of NiTi rotary instruments are a possibility without significantly increasing the risk of instrument separation. Single and multiple uses of NiTi reciprocating instruments are also associated with low incidence of separation. Attempting to remove separated instruments should be carefully evaluated.

Ex-vivo Smear Layer Removal Efficacy of Two Activated Irrigation Techniques After Reciprocating Instrumentation in Curved Canals.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of two activated irrigation techniques in removing the smear layer after single-file reciprocating instrumentation in curved canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty distobuccal roots of maxillary molars were standardized to create a closed system, and then instrumented using WaveOne Primary (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) instruments. Fifty-four specimens were randomly distributed into 3 groups for final irrigation: Non-activated irrigation, passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), and EndoActivator (EA;Dentsply Maillefer, Tulsa, USA) irrigation. All specimens received 3 mL of 17% EDTA for 1 minute, followed by irrigation with 6 mL of 2.5% NaOCl. The apical, middle and cervical thirds of the specimens were analyzed using scanning electronic microscopy (SEM), and the amount of remaining smear layer on the canal walls was rated by three examiners using a five-category scoring system. Kendall's concordance coefficient was used to assess inter-rater agreement. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney (Bonferroni) tests were used to compare the scores. RESULTS: Kendall's concordance coefficient was ≥ 0.7, indicating an excellent level of agreement between the raters. No statistically significant difference in irrigation techniques efficacy for removal of the smear layer (p=0.061) was found for the apical third. The scores attributed to the specimens irrigated with the EA system were significantly lower than those of the other groups in the cervical and middle thirds (p< 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of the EA system in removing the smear layer in the cervical and middle thirds of root canals instrumented with reciprocating motion was significantly higher than that of either PUI or non-activated irrigation. Both EA and PUI performed similarly in apical third.

Visualization Enhancement of Dentinal Defects by Using Light-Emitting Diode Transillumination.

INTRODUCTION: Several recent studies have evaluated the presence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation in extracted human teeth by using the root sectioning methodology. The objective of this research was to investigate whether light-emitting diode (LED) transillumination enhances the visualization of dentinal defects by using a root sectioning methodology. METHODS: Forty mesial roots of mandibular molars were sectioned at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex with a low-speed saw under water cooling. Microscopic pictures of the specimens were taken by using ×19.2 magnification for the 3-mm slice and ×12.8 magnification for the 6- and 9-mm slices. The LED transillumination was done by positioning an LED probe at 4 different locations (mesial, distal, buccal, and lingual). The root canal lumen was masked, and 2 independent evaluators assessed the presence of dentinal defects on the non-LED and LED images. The number of dentinal defects was recorded, and χ(2) test was used for statistical analysis (P < .05). RESULTS: The number of slices presenting dentinal defects at 3, 6, and 9 mm were 2 (5%), 1 (2.5%), and 1 (2.5%), respectively, for the non-LED assessment and 8 (20%), 10 (25%), and 9 (22.5%), respectively, for the LED assessment. Overall, 4 of the specimens (10%) presented dentinal defects without LED evaluation, and 19 of the specimens (47.5%) presented dentinal defects with LED evaluation. This difference was statistically significant (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: LED transillumination enhanced the visualization of dentinal defects in uninstrumented roots. The results from previous studies that used the traditional non-LED sectioning methodology should be evaluated with caution.