Aim and objective: Evaluating dentinal cracks in root canal surface after biomechanical preparation using rotary file systems such as ProTaper Next, 2 Shape, and RaCe.
Materials and methods: Forty extracted human single canal mandibular premolars were decoronated perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth leaving roots (12 ± 1 mm) and then positioned centrally in a mold using acrylic resin. Roots were randomly divided into four main groups (n = 10) according to the nickel-titanium (Ni–Ti) rotary file system used in preparation as follows: Group I: Control group roots were left unprepared. Group II: Canals were prepared using Ni–Ti 2 Shape system up to TS2 file (#25/0.06). Group III: Canals were prepared using Ni–Ti ProTaper Next system up to X2 file (#25/0.06). Group IV: Canals were prepared using Ni–Ti RaCe system up to file (#25/0.06). Each root was sectioned horizontally using IsoMet saw into three sections as coronal, middle, and apical with a total of 120 sections and observed by stereomicroscope and scanning electron microscope to detect dentinal cracks.
Results: There are more dentinal cracks in the ProTaper Next group than in the 2 Shape, RaCe, and control groups as there was a statistically significant difference present (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant difference between the apical, middle, and coronal sections (p = 0.536).
Conclusion: ProTaper Next group showed a high percentage of dentinal crack incidence followed by RaCe, 2 Shape, and control groups regardless of the root canal cross-section, and the highest percentage of dentinal crack incidence was in the apical third followed by middle and coronal thirds regardless of the Ni–Ti system.
Clinical significance: To evaluate Ni–Ti rotary system effect on dentinal crack incidence.
Garg E, Sarfi S, Bali D, et al. Comparative evaluation of dentinal defects induced by hand files, hyflex, protaper next and one shape during canal preparation: a stereomicroscopic study. J Int Clin Dent Res Org 2017;9(1):16. DOI: 10.4103/2231-0754.201735
Passarinho-Neto JG, Marchesan MA, Ferreira RB, et al. In vitro evaluation of endodontic debris removal as obtained by rotary instrumentation coupled with ultrasonic irrigation. Aust Endod J 2006;32(3):123–128. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-4477.2006.00035.x.
Mishra N, Qureshi R, Agarwal M, et al. Challenges and current concepts in the preparation of root canal systems in radix entomolaris case reports. J Dent Med Sci 2016;15(2):77–81. DOI: 10.9790/0853-15267781.
Bier CAS, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, et al. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod 2009;35(2):236–238. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.10.021.
Kansal R, Rajput A, Talwar S, et al. Assessment of dentinal damage during canal preparation using reciprocating and rotary files. J Endod 2014;40(9):1443–1446. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.015.
Harandi A, Mirzaeerad S, Mehrabani M, et al. Incidence of dentinal crack after root canal preparation by ProTaper Universal, Neolix and SafeSider systems. Iran Endod J 2017;12(4):432. DOI: 10.22037/iej.v12i4.17597.
Chauhan R, Tikku A, Chandra A. Detection of residual obturation material after root canal retreatment with three different techniques using a dental operating microscope and a stereomicroscope: an in vitro comparative evaluation. J Conserv Dent 2012;15(3):218. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.97940.
Jain A, Bhadoria K, Choudhary B, et al. Comparison of dentinal defects induced by hand files multiple and single rotary files: a stereomicroscopic study. World Dent J 2017;8(1):45–48. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-1409.
Ferrara G, Taschieri S, Corbella S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of two different nickel–titanium rotary files in curved root canals of extracted human molar teeth. J Investig Clin Dent 2017;8(1):15-8. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12187.
Das S, Pradhan PK, Lata S, et al. Comparative evaluation of dentinal crack formation after root canal preparation using ProTaper Next, OneShape, and Hyflex EDM. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(2):153-6. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_219_17.
Singh TK, Mathur R, Passi D, et al. To study the crack initiation on the apical root surface following different root canal preparation techniques and instruments: an in vitro study. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2018;8(3):55–59.
Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, et al. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013;39(8):1054–1056. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.013.
Wilcox LR, Roskelley C, Sutton T. The relationship of root canal enlargement to finger-spreader induced vertical root fracture. J Endod 1997;23(8):533–534. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80316-0.
Nazir SM, Abdallah AM, Mokhless NA. Detection of crack formation following coronal flaring with three different instruents using two evaluation methods-in-vitro study. Alexandria Dent J 2017;42(2):135–140. DOI: 10.21608/ADJALEXU.2017.57916.
Yoldas O, Yilmaz S, Atakan G, et al. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod 2012;38(2):232–235. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.10.011.
Cordeiro MM, Rocha MJ. The effects of periradicular inflamation and infection on a primary tooth and permanent successor. J Clin Pediatr 2005;29(3):193–200. DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.29.3.5238p10v21r2j162.
Ashraf F, Shankarappa P, Misra A, et al. A stereomicroscopic evaluation of dentinal cracks at different instrumentation lengths by using different rotary files (ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM): an ex vivo study. Sci (Cairo) J 2016;2016:837–865. DOI: 10.1155/2016/8379865.
Peters O. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30(8):559-67. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000129039.59003.9d.
Jiang LM, Lak B, Eijsvogels LM, et al. Comparison of the cleaning efficacy of different final irrigation techniques. J Endod 2012;38(6):838–841. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.002.
Çiçek E, Koçak MM, Sağlam BC, et al. Evaluation of microcrack formation in root canals after instrumentation with different NiTi rotary file systems: a scanning electron microscopy study. Scanning 2015;37(1):49–53. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21178.
Özer SY. Detection of vertical root fractures of different thicknesses in endodontically enlarged teeth by cone beam computed tomography versus digital radiography. J Endod 2010;36(7):1245–1249. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.021.
Kinıcı D, Çolak Topçu M, Karataş E. Comparison of the effect of different glide path Ni-Ti rotary systems on the formation of dentinal crack on curved root canals. Turk Endod J 2017;2(1):1–4. DOI: 10.14744/TEJ.2016.03522.
Hin ES, Wu M-K, Wesselink PR, et al. Effects of self-adjusting file, Mtwo, and ProTaper on the root canal wall. J Endod 2013;39(2):262–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.10.020.
Shemesh H, Wesselink PR, Wu MK. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal filling procedures. J Endod 2010;43(11):995–1000. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01740.x.
Strani F, Profico A, Manzi G, et al. MicroWeaR: a new R package for dental microwear analysis. Ecol Evol J 2018;8(14):7022–7030. DOI: 10.1002/ece3.4222.
Patino P, Biedma B, Liebana C, et al. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod 2005;31(2):114–116. DOI: 10.1097/01.don.0000136209.28647.13.
Gündoğar M, Özyürek T. Cyclic fatigue resistance of OneShape, HyFlex EDM, WaveOne gold, and Reciproc blue nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2017;43(7):1192–1196. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.03.009.
Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, et al. Effects of ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod 2014;40(9):1482–1484. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.026.
Karataş E, Gündüz HA, Kırıcı DÖ, et al. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, and WaveOne instruments. J Endod 2015;41(2):261–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.019.
Milani AS, Froughreyhani M, Rahimi S, et al. The effect of root canal preparation on the development of dentin cracks. Iran Endod J 2012;7(4):177.
Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Schäfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2013;39(4):501–504. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.045.
Staffoli S, Özyürek T, Hadad A, et al. Comparison of shaping ability of ProTaper Next and 2Shape nickel–titanium files in simulated severe curved canals. G Ital Endod 2018;32(2):52–56. DOI: 10.1016/j.gien.2018.05.002.
Garg S, Mahajan P, Thaman D, et al. Comparison of dentinal damage induced by different nickel-titanium rotary instruments during canal preparation: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2015;18(4):302–305. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.159730.
Nishad SV, Shivamurthy G. Comparative analysis of apical root crack propagation after root canal preparation at different instrumentation lengths using protaper universal, protaper next and protaper gold rotary files: an in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 2018;9(5):34. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_830_17.
Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Suda H. Crack initiation on the apical root surface caused by three different nickel-titanium rotary files at different working lengths. J Endod 2011;37(4):522–525. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.12.002.
Adorno CG, Yoshioka T, Suda H. The effect of root preparation technique and instrumentation length on the development of apical root cracks. J Endod 2009;35(3):389–392. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.12.008.