Preservation of root canal anatomy using self-adjusting file instrumentation with glide path prepared by 20/0.02 hand files versus 20/0.04 rotary files.

Abstract

Objectives:To compare the relative axis modification and canal concentricity after glide path preparation with 20/0.02 hand K-file (NITIFLEX®) and 20/0.04 rotary file (HyFlex™ CM) with subsequent instrumentation with 1.5 mm self-adjusting file (SAF).Materials and Methods:One hundred and twenty ISO 15, 0.02 taper, Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) were acquired and randomly divided into following two groups (n = 60): group 1, establishing glide path till 20/0.02 hand K-file (NITIFLEX®) followed by instrumentation with 1.5 mm SAF; and Group 2, establishing glide path till 20/0.04 rotary file (HyFlex™ CM) followed by instrumentation with 1.5 mm SAF. Pre- and post-instrumentation digital images were processed with MATLAB R 2013 software to identify the central axis, and then superimposed using digital imaging software (Picasa 3.0 software, Google Inc., California, USA) taking five landmarks as reference points. Student's t-test for pairwise comparisons was applied with the level of significance set at 0.05.Results:Training blocks instrumented with 20/0.04 rotary file and SAF were associated less deviation in canal axis (at all the five marked points), representing better canal concentricity compared to those, in which glide path was established by 20/0.02 hand K-files followed by SAF instrumentation.Conclusion:Canal geometry is better maintained after SAF instrumentation with a prior glide path established with 20/0.04 rotary file.