Influence of shaft design on the shaping ability of 3 nickel-titanium rotary systems by means of spiral computerized tomography

Objective. To evaluate the influence of shaft design on the shaping ability of 3 rotary nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems. Study design. Sixty curved mesial canals of mandibular molars were used. Specimens were scanned by spiral tomography before and after canal preparation using ProTaper, ProFile, and ProSystem GT rotary instruments. One-millimeter-thick slices were scanned from the apical end point to the pulp chamber. The cross-sectional images from the slices taken earlier and after canal preparation at the apical, coronal, and midroot levels were compared. Results. The mean working time was 137.22 +/- 5.15 s. Mean transportation, mean centering ratio, and percentage of area increase were 0.022 +/- 0.131 mm, 0.21 +/- 0.11, and 76.90 +/- 42.27%, respectively, with no statistical differences (P > .05). Conclusions. All instruments were able to shape curved mesial canals in mandibular molars to size 30 without significant errors. The differences in shaft designs seemed not to affect their shaping capabilities.

Influence of different endodontic filling materials on root fracture susceptibility

Objective: To evaluate the influence of different endodontic materials on root fracture susceptibility. Methods: Seventy-two mandibular incisors were sectioned 1 mm below the cementoenamel junction to obtain roots of 12 mm length. Roots were submitted to chemomechanical preparation with the rotary instruments of Profile system. The obturation of root canals were performed with the following filling materials (n = 12): GI, unfilled teeth (control); GII, Endofill + gutta-percha; GIII, Sealer 26 + gutta-percha; GIV, AH Plus + gutta-percha; GV, Epiphany + gutta-percha; GVI, Epiphany + Resilon. After the sealers setting time, each root was embedded in acrylic resin. The specimens were then submitted to fracture resistance test using an Instron testing machine at 1 mm/min. Results: The ANOVA test showed no significant statistical difference (p > .05) among GI (162.16 +/- 41.4N), GII (168.46 +/- 37.5N), GIII (164.83 +/- 35.7N), GIV (168.29 +/- 38.7N), GV (172.36 +/- 20.6N) and GVI (193.11 +/- 42.8N). Conclusion: The core materials (gutta-percha or Resilon) combined with the tested endodontic sealers are not able to increase the root fracture resistance in canals submitted to chemomechanical preparation. (c) 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Effect of Chelating Solutions on the Microhardness of Root Canal Lumen Dentin

Introduction: The greatest reduction in microhardness of the most superficial layer of dentin of the root canal lumen is desired. The use of chelating agents during biomechanical preparation of root canals removes smear layer, increasing the access of the irrigant into the dentin tubules to allow adequate disinfection, and also reduces dentin microhardness, facilitating the action of endodontic instruments. This study evaluated the effect of different chelating solutions on the microhardness of the most superficial dentin layer from the root canal lumen. Methods: Thirty-five recently extracted single-rooted maxillary central incisors were instrumented, and the roots were longitudinally sectioned in a mesiodistal direction to expose the entire canal extension. The specimens were distributed in seven groups according to the final irrigation: 15% EDTA, 10% citric acid, 5% malic acid, 5% acetic acid, apple vinegar, 10% sodium citrate, and control (no irrigation). A standardized volume of 50 mu L of each chelating solution was used for 5 minutes. Dentin microhardness was measured with a Knoop indenter under a 10-g load and a 15-second dwell time. Data were analyzed statistically by one-way analysis of variance and Tukey-Kramer multiple-comparison test at 5% significance level. Results: EDTA and citric acid had the greatest overall effect, causing a sharp decrease in dentin microhardness without a significant difference (p > .05) from each other. However, both chelators differed significantly from the other solutions (p < .001). Sodium citrate and deionized water were similar to each other (p > .05) and did not affect dentin microhardness. Apple vinegar, acetic acid, and malic acid were similar to each other (p > .05) and presented intermediate results. Conclusion: Except for sodium citrate, all tested chelating solutions reduced microhardness of the most superficial root canal dentin layer. EDTA and citric acid were the most efficient. (J Endod 2011;37:358-362)