International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 15 , ISSUE S1 ( Special issue-1 (Pediatr Endodont), 2022 ) > List of Articles


Effect of Different Preparation Techniques on Root Canal Geometry: An In Vitro Study

Pooja Bheda, Adesh Kakade, Vilas Takate, Akansha Juneja, Kishor Dighe, Bharat Gupta

Keywords : CBCT, Hand ProTaper files, Rotary ProTaper files, Surface area and volume of primary canals

Citation Information :

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2136

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 28-02-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: To compare and evaluate canal preparation using hand stainless steel files, hand ProTaper files, and rotary ProTaper files for change in root canal geometry in terms of surface area and volume changes assessed by computed tomography. Materials and methods: The present study was conducted in Nair Hospital and Dental College, Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry in collaboration with insight CBCT, imaging technologies. A total of 36 extracted human primary mandibular second molars were collected from the Department of Pediatric and Preventive Dentistry. All the teeth were scanned using cone-beam CT (i-CAT CT Scanner Next Generation, Imaging Sciences International) preoperatively and postoperatively to assess the mean absolute change in surface area and mean change in the volume of all the canals at different levels with the use of hand stainless steel files, hand ProTaper and rotary ProTaper files. Results: ProTaper instruments, both hand ProTaper and rotary ProTaper caused significant changes in the surface area in the coronal thirds and middle thirds of the canal when compared to hand stainless steel files. No difference was found in surface area and volume changes between hand ProTaper and rotary ProTaper instrumentation. Conclusion: Use of ProTaper instruments for preparation of deciduous teeth can render benefit of an improved canal preparation to facilitate better obturation and successful root canal therapy.

  1. Cruse WP, Bellizzi R. A historic review of endodontics, 1689-1963, part 1. J Endod 1980;6(3):495–499. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(80)80008-2
  2. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gorstein. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988;14(7):346–351. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(88)80196-1
  3. Lauten SEP, Monagran P. Titanium and titanium alloy as dental materials. Int Endod J 1993;43:245–253.
  4. Ruddle C. ProTaper endodontic system geometries, features and guidelines for use. Dent Today 2001;20:60–67.
  5. Chan AW, Cheung GS. A comparison of stainless steel and nickel-titanium K-files in curved root canals. Int Endod J 1996; 29:370–375. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1996.tb01400.x
  6. Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997;23(5):301–306. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80410-4
  7. Sydney GB, Batista A, de Melo LL. The radiographic platform: A new method to evaluate root canal preparation in vitro. J Endod 1991; 17:570–572. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)81724-3
  8. Barthel CR, Gruber S, Roulet JF. A new method to assess the results of instrumentation techniques in the root canal. J Endod 1999;25: 535–538. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80374-4
  9. Coleman CL, Svec CA. A nalysis of Ni Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod 1997;23:232–235. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80053-2
  10. Mayo VC, Montgomery S, Rio C. A computerized method for evaluating root canal morphology. J Endod 1986; 12(1):2–7. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(86)80274-6
  11. Tachibana H, Matsumoto K. Applicability of X ray Computerised Tomography in Endodontics. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:16-20. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-9657.1990.tb00381.x
  12. Gluskin AH, Brown DC, Buchnan LS. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J 2001; 34:476–484. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00422.x
  13. Clauder T, Baumann MA Protaper NT system. Dent Clin Am 2004;48:87–111. DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2003.10.006
  14. Clarkson JJ. International collaborative research on fluoride. J Dent Res 2000;79:893–904.
  15. Bramante CM, Berbert A, Borges RP. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endod 1987;13(5):243–245. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80099-7
  16. Bjorndal L, Carlsen O, Thuesen G, et al. External and internal macromorphology in 30 – reconstructed maxillary molar using computerized X ray microtomography. Int Endod J 1999;32:3–9.
  17. Peters O A, A Laib, P Rüegsegger, F Barbakow et al. Three dimensional analsis of Root canal Geometry by High- resolution computed tomography. J Dent Res 2000:79:1405–1409. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790060901
  18. Rhodes JS, Pitt Ford TR, Lynch JA, et al. A comparison of two nickel titanium instrumentation techniques in teeth using microcomputed tomography. Int Endod J 2000;33:279–285. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00306.x
  19. Nielsen RB, Alayssin AM, Carnes Dl et al. Microcomputed tomography: an advanced system for detailed endodontic research. J Endod 1995;21(11):561–568.
  20. Peters OA, Schonenberger K, Lalb A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int. Endod J 2001;34:221–230. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00373.x
  21. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schonenberger K, Barbakow. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J 2003; 36:88–92.
  22. Shruthi Nagaraja, B V Sreenivasa Murthy. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand Ni-Ti instruments: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13(1):16–22.
  23. Thais Regina Kummer, Maria Cristina Calvo, Mabel Mariela Rodríguez Cordeiro, Ricardo de Sousa Vieira, Maria José de Carvalho Rocha. Ex vivo study of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques in human primary teeth Oral Surg oral Med Oral Path Oral Radio Endod 2008;105(4):e84–e92. DOI: 10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.008.
  24. Prove SA, Symons AL, Meyers IA. Physiological root resorption of primary molars. J Clin Pediatr Dent 1992;16:202–206.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.