CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: An in vitro study

Abstract

Background: Controlled, uniformly tapered radicular preparation is a great challenge in endodontics. Improper preparation can lead to procedural errors like transportation of foramen, uneven dentine thickness, stripping of root canal, formation of ledge, zip, and elbow in curved canals. These procedural errors and their sequel can adversely affect the prognosis of treatment.

Aim/objectives: The present in vitro study aims to evaluate canal preparation based on the following factors: canal transportation, remaining dentine thickness and comparing centering ability between hand Ni-Ti K files and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments using computed tomography (CT).

Materials and methods: For evaluation, 30 mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars were selected. Of these, 15 roots were distributed into two groups where Group 1 included hand instrumentation with Ni-Ti K-files; and Group 2 comprised ProTaper NiTi rotary system. Pre instrumentation and post instrumentation three-dimensional CT images were obtained from root cross-sections that were 1 mm thick from apex to the canal orifice; scanned images were then superimposed and compared.

Result: It was observed that the manual technique using hand Ni-Ti K-file produced lesser canal transportation and maintained greater dentine thickness than the rotary ProTaper technique at middle and coronal third and this difference was statistically significant. No significant difference was seen with regard to canal transportation and remaining root dentine at apical levels. With regard to centering ratio, no significant difference was seen between both the groups at all levels.

Conclusion: ProTaper should be used judiciously, especially in curved canals, as it causes higher canal transportation and thinning of root dentine at middle and coronal levels. None of the groups showed optimal centering ability.

Keywords: Canal transportation; ProTaper; computed tomography; nickel-titanium; rotary instrumentation.

Figure 1

Scanning at 9 different levels

Figure 2

CT images of group 1

Figure 3

CT images of group 2

Figure 4

Superimposition of images

Figure 5

Image evaluation

Figure 6

Evaluation of canal transportation

Figure 7

Remaining dentine thickness

Graph 1

Canal transportation recorded at different levels between two groups

Graph 2

Remaining root dentine recorded at different levels between two groups

Graph 3

Centering ratio recorded at different levels between two groups