Abstract
The aim was to compare the shaping ability of different rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. One hundred S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size 25 using F6 SkyTaper (Komet), Silk Files .04, Silk Files .06, Prototypes .04, and Prototypes .06 (all Mani) (20 canals/group). Material removal was measured at 20 measuring points, beginning 1mm from the endpoint of preparation. Incidence of canal aberrations, preparation time, and instrument failures were also recorded. Statistical analyses were performed using ANOVA, Student-Newman-Keuls and Chi-square test. Pooled data of all measuring points revealed that canals instrumented with Prototypes .04 were significantly better centered than those prepared with all other instruments, while Prototypes .06 and both Silk Files performed significantly better than F6 SkyTaper (p < 0.05). The preparation time differed significantly between all groups and Prototypes .04 allowed the fastest preparation (p < 0.05). There was no statistically significant association between type of instrument and incidence of aberrations (p > 0.05). The cross-sectional design had a marked impact on the shaping ability of the instruments, and less tapered instruments maintained the original canal curvature better than instruments having greater tapers.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.