4.5 Article

Canal Transportation, Unprepared Areas, and Dentin Removal after Preparation with BT-RaCe and ProTaper Next Systems

Journal

JOURNAL OF ENDODONTICS
Volume 43, Issue 10, Pages 1683-1687

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.04.012

Keywords

Dentin thickness; micro-computed tomographic imaging; root canal preparation; root canal transportation; unprepared canal surface area

Funding

  1. Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Cientifico e Tecnologico
  2. Fundacao Carlos Chagas Filho de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Introduction: This study compared the shaping ability of ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, Tulsa, OK) and BT-RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) instrument systems in the mesial canals of mandibular molars using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging. Methods: A total of 17 type IV mesial roots of extracted first mandibular molars were scanned using micro-CT imaging before and after root canal preparation with the 2 instrument systems. Both systems were used in the same root but alternating the mesial canals from root to root. The following parameters were analyzed: root canal volume, surface area, unprepared surface areas, transportation, canal/root width ratio, and preparation time. Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 systems for all evaluated parameters (P > .05). The unprepared surface areas for the full canal length and the apical 5-mm segment were 33% and 14% for BT-RaCe and 31% and 14% for ProTaper Next, respectively. After preparation, all root canals had a diameter that was not larger than 35% of the root diameter at the coronal and middle segments. Conclusions: The 2 systems showed no differences in any of the evaluated shaping parameters. None of the tested systems put the roots at risk of fracture because of excessive dentin removal.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available