Cleaning ability of rotary NiTi systems with different kinematics

Amira Galal Ismail,Manar Galal,Mohamed Mokhtar Nagy

doi:10.1186/s42269-019-0191-x

Amira Galal Ismail, Manar Galal + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0191-x

Copy DOI

Abstract

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the cleaning ability of rotary NiTi systems with different kinematics: ProTaper Next (PTN) (continuous rotation motion), WaveOne Gold (WOG) (reciprocating motion), and Twisted File Adaptive (TFA) (adaptive motion).MethodologySixty mesiobuccal roots from extracted mandibular molars were divided into three groups (n = 20): PTN, prepared by ProTaper Next; WOG, prepared by WaveOne Gold system; and TFA, prepared by Twisted File Adaptive systems. Teeth were longitudinally split into two halves for evaluation by scanning electron microscope. Images were analysed for debris and smear layer scores using the scoring system described by Hülsmann et al. (J Endod 23:301–6, 1997).ResultsNo significant difference was found between the three groups in the coronal one third (P = 0.071). However, the TFA group recorded a significantly higher percentage of debris in the middle and apical thirds (P < 0.001 and P < 0.001, respectively)ConclusionsUnder the conditions of this study, adaptive motion produced more debris than the reciprocating and the continuous rotating motions.

Highlights

Successful root canal treatment depends on a significant reduction of microorganisms through chemo-mechanical instrumentation of the root canal system (Averbach & Kleier, 2006; Hülsmann et al, 2005)
A statistically significant difference was found between ProTaper Next (PTN) and Twisted File Adaptive (TFA) where P = 0.001
A statistically significant difference was found between TFA and WaveOne Gold (WOG) where P = 0.001

Summary

Introduction

Successful root canal treatment depends on a significant reduction of microorganisms through chemo-mechanical instrumentation of the root canal system (Averbach & Kleier, 2006; Hülsmann et al, 2005). Root canal preparation using rotary nickel-titanium instruments has become popular over the past two decades. No instrument is capable of complete cleaning of the entire root canal system (Hülsmann et al, 1997; Gambarini & Laszkiewicz, 2002; Schafer & Schlingemann, 2003; Usman et al, 2004; Haapasalo et al, 2005; Arvaniti & Khabbaz, 2011). The progress of nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems has been focused on variations in file design together with the simplification of the instrumentation sequences (Peters & Paque, 2010; Shen et al, 2013). The aim of this study was to compare the cleaning ability of rotary NiTi systems with different kinematics: ProTaper (PTN) (continuous rotation motion), WaveOne Gold (WOG) (reciprocating motion), and Twisted File Adaptive (TFA) (adaptive motion)

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion