ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to investigate the apical transportation of the ProGlider and ProTaper Next using 3 different motions (150° clockwise [CW]; 0° counter clockwise [CCW], 270° CW-30° CCW; and [360° CW] continuous rotation). MATERIALS AND METHODS: 36 simulated, curved, plastic training blocks were randomly distributed into 3 groups for treatment according to the movement kinematics used for ProGlider (Dentsply Maillefer) followed by ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments (n = 12): 150° CW-30° CCW, 270° CW-30° CCW, and 360° CW (continuous rotation). Pre- and post-instrumentation photographs were taken from the root canals in a standardized manner. Root canal transportation was calculated at 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm from the apical terminus of the canal. Data were analyzed using a Kruskal-Walis H test (p = .05). RESULTS: At the 1- and 2-mm levels, both reciprocating motions (150° CW-30° CCW and 270° CW-30° CCW) resulted in less transportation than those of continuous rotation (p<.05). However, there were no significant differences between the groups at the 3-, 4-, and 5-mm levels (p>.05). CONCLUSIONS: Both reciprocating motions were found to have less canal transportation than the continuous rotation group at the 1- and 2-mm levels. This is the first study about the use of the ProGlider and ProTaper Next activated by different motions. Reciprocating motion can be beneficial for ProGlider and ProTaper Next to reduce transportation of root canals.
ABSTRACT
PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to determine the amount of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation with ProTaper Gold (PTG) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Universal (PTU) (Dentsply Maillefer), ProTaper Next (PTN) (Dentsply Maillefer), and RECIPROC (VDW, Munich, Germany) in curved canals. METHODS: Eighty human mandibular molar teeth were divided into 4 groups according to the system used for root canal preparation: PTG, PTU, PTN, and RECIPROC groups. The mean weight of extruded debris was statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance and post-hoc Tukey's test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The PTU was associated with significantly more extruded debris than the PTG, PTN, and RECIPROC (p<0.05). The PTG was associated with significantly more extruded debris than the PTN and RECIPROC (p<0.05), whereas no significant difference was found between the RECIPROC and PTN (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All systems caused apical debris extrusion during curved canal preparations. However, the PTG, PTN, and RECIPROC systems resulted in significantly less debris extrusion than the PTU system.
