J Korean Acad Conserv Dent.  2004 Jan;29(1):44-50. 10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.1.044.

Shaping ability of nickel-titaniumrotary files

• Park WK
• Lee HJ
• Hur B

• KMID: 1987083
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2004.29.1.044

Abstract

This study compared the shaping ability of nickel-titanium rotary files with different rake angle and radial land. The nickel-titanium files used in this study were Profile(Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Hero 642(Micromega, Besancon, France), and K3(SybronEndo, Glendora, Ca, USA) file. Resin blocks substituted for root canals. 36 resin blocks were divided into 3 groups with 12 canals each. The time for canal preparation was recorded. The images of pre- and postoperative resin canal were scanned and those were superimposed. Amounts of canal deviation, total canal widths, inner canal widths, and outer canal widths were measured at apical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7mm levels. The amount of canal deviation was the smallest in Profile group, and the time for canal preparation was the shortest in Hero 642 group. K3 group resulted in competent characteristics in both measurements. Positive rake angle seemed to result in fast shaping of root canal and radial land guide the instrument in center of the canals and around curvatures. Radial land also tended to reduce the sense of screwing into the root canal. The proper selection of the nickel-titanium file based on the knowledge about file design is needed for the safer, simpler and faster root canal therapy.

Keyword

Shaping abiliy; Nickel-titanium rotary file; Radial land; Rake angle

MeSH Terms

Dental Pulp Cavity
Root Canal Therapy

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Superimposing images of pre- and postoperative blocks

Reference

References

1. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1:255–262. 1975.

2. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 18:269–296. 1974.

3. Coleman CL, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod. 23:232–235. 1997.

4. 박 한수, 이 민구, 김 종진, 임 영준, 장 문성, 이 종엽. ‘Three file’ 방식에 의한 만곡 근관 형성시 근관의 형태에 관한 연구. 대한 치과보존학회지. 25:494–498. 2000.

5. 박 한수, 백 승호. ‘Two file’방식에 의한 근관 형성시 근관의 형태에 관한 연구. 대한치과보존학회지. 26:507–511. 2001.

6. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 14:346–551. 1988.

7. Thompson SA. An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endod J. 33:297–310. 2000.

8. Morgan LF, Montgomery S. An evaluation of the crown-down pressureless technique. J Endod. 10:491–498. 1984.

9. Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Effect of early coronal flaring on working length change in curved canals using rotary nickel-titanium versus stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 28:438–442. 2002.

10. Buchanan LS. The standardized-taper root canal preparation–Part 1. Concepts for variably tapered shaping instruments. Int Endod J. 33:516–529. 2000.

11. Barrieshi-Nusair KM. Gutta-percha retreatment effectiveness of nickel-titanium rotary instruments versus stainless steel hand files. J Endod. 28:454–456. 2002.

12. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 26:161–165. 2000.

13. Powell SE, Simon JH, Maze BB. A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration. J Endod. 12:293–300. 1986.

14. Kuhn WG, Carnes DL Jr, Clement DJ, Walker WA 3rd. Effect of tip design of nickel-titanium and stainless steel files on root canal preparation. J Endod. 23:735–738. 1997.

15. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 25:441–445. 1999.

16. Camps JJ, Pertot WJ. Torsional and stiffness properties of nickel-titanium K files. Int Endod J. 28:239–243. 1995.

17. Haikel Y, Gasser P, Allemann C. Dynamic fracture of hybrid endodontic hand instruments compared with traditional files. J Endod. 17:217–220. 1991.

18. Wildey WL, Senia ES, Montgomery S. Another look at root canal instrumentation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 74:499–507. 1992.

19. Bahcall JK, Barss JT. Understanding and evaluating the endodontic file. Gen Dent. 48:690–692. 2000.

20. Averbach RE, Kleier DJ. Endodontics in the 21st century: the rotary revolution. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 22:27–34. 2001.

21. 박 한수. 만곡 근관에서 근첨 형성 크기에 따른 근관의 전이 정 도에 관한 연구. 대한치과보존학회지. 26:200–205. 2001.

22. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 32:271–275. 1971.

23. Vulcain JM, Calas P. The three wave concept of Hero 642. Endod Prac. 2:20–31. 1999.

24. 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. 32:155–164. 1999.

25. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 14:324–333. 2001.

26. Buchanan LS. Curved root canals: treating the most common endodontic complexity. Dent Today. 11:34–38. 1992.

27. Turpin YL, Chagneau F, Vulcain JM. Impact of two theoretical cross-sections on torsional and bending stresses of nickel-titanium root canal instrument models. J Endod. 26:414–417. 2000.

28. Turpin YL, Chagneau F Bartier, Cathelineau G, Vulcain JM. Impact of torsional and bending inertia on root canal instruments. J Endod. 27:333–336. 2001.

29. Powell SE, Wong PD, Simon JH. A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration. Part II. J Endod. 14:224–228. 1988.

30. Miserendino LJ, Moser JB, Heuer MA, Osetek EM. Cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments. Part 1: a quantitative comparison of the tip and fluted regions. J Endod. 11:435–441. 1985.

31. Miserendino LJ, Moser JB, Heuer MA, Osetek EM. Cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments. Part II Analysis of tip design. J Endod. 12:8–12. 1986.

32. Felt RA, Moser JB, Heuer MA. Flute design of endodontic instruments: its influence on cutting efficiency. J Endod. 8(6):253–259. 1982.

33. Koch K, Brave D. The ultimate rotary file? Oral Health March. 59–64. 2002.

34. Blum JY, Machtou P, Micallef JP. Location of contact areas on rotary Profile instruments in relationship to the forces developed during mechanical preparation on extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 32:108–114. 1999.

35. Lim KC, Webber J. The validity of simulated root canals for the investigation of the prepared root canal shape. Int Endod J. 18:240–246. 1985.

36. Schafer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 92:215–220. 2001.

37. Kum KY, Spangberg L, Cha BY, Il-Young J Msd, Seung-Jong L, Chan-Young L. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod. 26:719–723. 2000.

38. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 2. Int Endod J. 33:255–261. 2000.

39. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int Endod J. 33:248–255. 2000.