J Korean Acad Conserv Dent.  2007 Nov;32(6):530-541.

Comparison of shaping ability using various Nickel-Titanium rotary files and hybrid technique

• Kim JW
• Park JK
• Hur B
• Kim HC

Abstract

Currently, various Nickel-Titanium rotary files are used in endodontic treatment, but there is no one perfect system that can be applied to any clinical situation. Therefore, the combined uses of various file systems which can emphasize the advantages of each system are introduced as hybrid instrumentation. The ProTaper system is efficient in body shaping and apical pre-enlargement but is reported to have more possibility of transportation and produce more aberrations and deformation in more or less severe curved canals. Recently, new ProTaper system (ProTaper Universal) with different configuration and cross-sectional design to overcome the week points of ProTaper have been marketed. The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping abilities of ProTaper, ProTaper Universal system, and two hybrid methods using S-series of ProTaper Universal and Hero Shaper or ProFile. The time lapses for instrumentation were measured and the used files were inspected for distortion. The pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed to evaluate the aberrations and reduction of root canal curvature and change of radius of canal curvature. The increased canal width and apical centering ratio were calculated at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm levels from apical foramen. Under the conditions of this study, the ProTaper Universal seems to have better shaping ability than ProTaper in terms of instrumented width and instrumentation time. It may be suggested that the ProTaper Universal system is efficient as much as hybrid instrumentation using ProTaper and other constant-tapered NiTi file systems in highly experienced operators.

Keyword

Shaping ability; Hybrid method; ProTaper; ProTaper Universal; Experienced operator

MeSH Terms

Dental Pulp Cavity
Radius
Tooth Apex
Transportation
Two-Hybrid System Techniques

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Sample of superimposed image (ProTaper Universal). Purple; Pre-instrumented canal, Yellow; Post-instrumented canal

• 

  Figure 2 Left: Angle of curvature (α) as determined by Schneider method. Right: Radius (r) of a curved canal. The root canal is shown as a bold line.

• 

  Figure 3 Representative superimposed images of four groups. A.F.: apical foramen

Reference

1. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988. 14(7):346–351.

2. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1995. 21(3):146–151.

3. Schäfer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod. 2004. 30(6):432–435.

4. Chen JL, Messer HH. A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. Aust Dent J. 2002. 47(1):12–20.

5. Garip Y, Gunday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2001. 34(6):452–457.

6. Schäfer 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. 2001. 92(2):215–220.

7. West J. Endodontic Update 2006. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2006. 18(5):280–300.

8. Tasdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, Unal O. Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2005. 38(6):402–408.

9. Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod. 2002. 28(4):316–321.

10. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Trutt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved root of molars. J Endod. 2004. 30(4):234–237.

11. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003. 36(4):288–295.

12. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48(1):87–111.

13. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schöneberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J. 2003. 36(2):86–92.

14. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J. 2004. 37(9):613–623.

15. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003. 95(2):228–233.

16. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2004. 37(4):229–238.

17. Lee CH, Cho KM, Hong CU. Effect of various canal preparation techniques using rotary Nickel-Titanium files on the maintenance of canal curvature. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003. 28(1):41–49.

18. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod. 2003. 29(1):15–19.

19. Walsch H. The hybrid concept of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48(1):183–202.

20. Park SH, Cho KM, Kim JW. The Efficiency of the Ni-Ti Rotary files in Curved Simulated Canals Shaped by Novice Operators. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2003. 28(2):146–155.

21. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod. 1988. 14(6):273–277.

22. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1999. 25(6):441–445.

23. Schäfer E, Diez C, Hoppe W, Tepel J. Roentgenographic investigation of frequency and degree of canal curvatures in human permanent teeth. J Endod. 2002. 28(3):211–216.

24. Hong ES, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of shaping ability between various hybrid instrumentation methods with ProTaper. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2006. 31(1):11–19.

25. Powell SE, Simon JHS, Maze B. A comparison of the effect of modified and nonmodified instrument tips on apical canal configuration. J Endod. 1986. 12(7):293–300.

26. Park WK, Lee HJ, Hur B. Shaping ability of nickel-titanium rotary files. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2004. 29(1):44–50.

27. Peters OA. Current Challenges and Concepts in the Preparation of Root Canal Systems: A Review. J Endod. 2004. 30(8):559–567.

28. Kim HC, Park JK, Hur B. Relative efficacy of three Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduates. J Korean Acad Conserv Dent. 2005. 30(1):38–48.

29. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL. Cyclic fatigue of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997. 23(2):77–85.

30. Haikel Y, Serfaty R, Bateman G, Senger B, Allemann C. Dynamic and cyclic fatigue of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1999. 25(6):434–440.