IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of the Effectiveness of Different Endodontic Systems in Preserving Original Root Canal Anatomy: a CBCT Guided Study
Objectives: To compare the canal centering ability and potential to preserve internal root canal anatomy during canal preparation with Rotary, Reciprocating systems and Vibratory adaptive Self-adjusting File Systems (SAF).
Methods: Patients of 18-50 years with Mandibular first and second molars indicated for primary Endodontics were included and randomly allocated to three groups with 47 in each group: Group A Rotary file system; Group B: Reciprocating file system; Group C: SAF. The selected teeth were imaged with CBCT before and after preparation and metrically assessed for changes in curvature and transportation during canal preparation, mean total widths and outer and inner width measurements determined on each central canal path. Root canal transportation and centering ratio were evaluated at coronal, middle and apical thirds both mesiodistally and buccolingually. Areas of uninstrumented canals, total number of samples which can be prepared without deformation or separation and time taken for canal preparation was noted. Data were collected and statistically analyzed.
Results: SAF exhibited less canal transportation and had better centering ability and the reciprocating systems performed better than rotary systems. At 2 mm the transportation with mean SD was Group A:1.52 (0.41), Group B: 1.30 (0.37) and Group C: 0.53 (0.27) (χ2 = 252.150, p = <0.001. There was a significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of Uninstrumented Area (Distal) (χ2 = 203.459, p = <0.001), with the median Uninstrumented Area (Distal) being highest in the Group: A. There was a significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of Preparation Time (Minutes) (χ2 = 97.634, p = <0.001), with the median Preparation Time (Minutes) being highest in the Group: C group.
Conclusions: The SAF system could maintain the original morphology and led to lesser transportation and had better centering ability and lesser percentage of unprepared surfaces.
Methods: Patients of 18-50 years with Mandibular first and second molars indicated for primary Endodontics were included and randomly allocated to three groups with 47 in each group: Group A Rotary file system; Group B: Reciprocating file system; Group C: SAF. The selected teeth were imaged with CBCT before and after preparation and metrically assessed for changes in curvature and transportation during canal preparation, mean total widths and outer and inner width measurements determined on each central canal path. Root canal transportation and centering ratio were evaluated at coronal, middle and apical thirds both mesiodistally and buccolingually. Areas of uninstrumented canals, total number of samples which can be prepared without deformation or separation and time taken for canal preparation was noted. Data were collected and statistically analyzed.
Results: SAF exhibited less canal transportation and had better centering ability and the reciprocating systems performed better than rotary systems. At 2 mm the transportation with mean SD was Group A:1.52 (0.41), Group B: 1.30 (0.37) and Group C: 0.53 (0.27) (χ2 = 252.150, p = <0.001. There was a significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of Uninstrumented Area (Distal) (χ2 = 203.459, p = <0.001), with the median Uninstrumented Area (Distal) being highest in the Group: A. There was a significant difference between the 3 groups in terms of Preparation Time (Minutes) (χ2 = 97.634, p = <0.001), with the median Preparation Time (Minutes) being highest in the Group: C group.
Conclusions: The SAF system could maintain the original morphology and led to lesser transportation and had better centering ability and lesser percentage of unprepared surfaces.
3642740_File000000.jpg
3642740_File000001.jpg