A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT™ files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators

Aim The aim of this study was to compare the effects of preparation with conventional stainless steel Flexofiles(R) and Gates Glidden burs versus nickel-titanium GT(TM) rotary files in the shaping of mesial root canals of extracted mandibular molars. Methodology A total of 54 canals from 27 mesial roots of mandibular molar teeth were prepared using one of two methods by novice dental students. One canal in each root was prepared by a crown-down approach, utilizing stainless steel Flexofiles(R) and Gates Glidden burs. The other canal was prepared using nickel-titanium GT(TM) rotary files in a crown-down fashion as recommended by the manufacturer. Preoperative CT scans of each root were recorded and 50 canal specimens were available for postoperative comparisons. Following canal shaping, postoperative scans were superimposed on the original images. Changes in canal area, canal transportation and thickness of remaining root structure at strategic levels of the root were analyzed. The time taken for each method was also noted. Results At the coronal and mid-root coronal one-third sections, the rotary GT(TM) files produced a significantly smaller postoperative canal area (P < 0.05). In the mid-root sections there was significantly less transportation of the root canal toward the furcation, and less thinning of the root structure with GT(TM) files compared to the stainless steel files (P < 0.05). Overall. there was greater conservation of structure coronally and more adequate shape in the mid-root level. The GT Tm rotary technique was significantly faster than the stainless steel hand-held file technique (P < 0.0001). Two GT(TM) instruments fractured during the study. Conclusions Under the conditions of this study, novice dental students were able to prepare curved root canals with Ni-Ti GT(TM) rotary files with less transportation and greater conservation of tooth structure, compared to canals prepared with hand instruments. The rotary technique was significantly faster.