Volume 4, Issue 4 (Journal of Research in Dental & Maxillofacial Sciences Autumn 2019)                   J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2019, 4(4): 6-10 | Back to browse issues page

XML Print

Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Khalilak Z, Sattarian I, Tour Savadkouhi S. Ex-Vivo Comparison of the Dentin Removal Ability of One Shape and F6 SkyTaper Rotary Files. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2019; 4 (4) :6-10
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-258-en.html
1- Assistant Professor, Endodontics Dept, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences
2- Dentist
3- Assistant Professor, Endodontics Dept, Faculty of Dentistry, Tehran Medical Sciences, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran , s_savadkouhi@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (2635 Views)

Background and Aim: One of the important characteristics of nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) rotary files is their dentin removal ability. The purpose of this study was to compare One Shape and F6 SkyTaper files in terms of dentin removal from the mesiobuccal canals of extracted first mandibular molars.

Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 24 mesiobuccal canals of extracted first mandibular molars were selected. After preparing an access cavity, the samples were divided into two groups (n=12). The samples were air-dried and incubated for 8 hours at 82°C for moisture removal. The initial weight of the specimens was then measured. The samples in group A were prepared using One Shape (#25/0.06) files while the samples in group B were prepared using F6 SkyTaper (#25/0.06) files at a speed of 400 revolutions per minute (rpm) and torque of 2.2 N/cm for 10 seconds. The samples were again rinsed, dried, and incubated to eliminate moisture. The weights of the teeth were measured after preparation to compare the dentin removal efficacy. The results were analyzed using paired t-test (P<0.05).

Results: The mean weight of the removed dentin was 0.053±0.019 g in the SkyTaper F6 group and 0.045±0.073 g in the One Shape group, which was 0.008 g or 15% less in the One Shape group, but the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.6).

Conclusion: The amount of the dentin removed from the root canals by the SkyTaper F6 rotary system was greater compared to the One Shape rotary system although the difference was not statistically significant.

Full-Text [PDF 250 kb]   (1262 Downloads) |   |   Full-Text (HTML)  (1100 Views)  
Type of Study: Original article | Subject: Radiology

1. Tomson PL, Simon SR. Contemporary cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. Prim Dent J. 2016 May 1;5(2):46-53.
2. Peters OA, Paque F. Current developments in rotary root canal instrument technology and clinical use: a review. Quintessence Int. 2010 Jun;41(6):479-88.
3. Peters OA, Schonenberger K, Laib A. Effects of four Ni-Ti preparation techniques on root canal geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2001 Apr;34(3):221-30. [DOI:10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00373.x] [PMID]
4. Pettiette MT, Delano EO, Trope M. Evaluation of success rate of endodontic treatment performed by students with stainless-steel K-files and nickel-titanium hand files. J Endod. 2001 Feb;27(2):124-7. [DOI:10.1097/00004770-200102000-00017] [PMID]
5. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 2001 Oct;14(5):324-33.
6. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004 Aug;30(8):559-67. [DOI:10.1097/01.DON.0000129039.59003.9D] [PMID]
7. Vinothkumar TS, Miglani R, Lakshminarayananan L. Influence of deep dry cryogenic treatment on cutting efficiency and wear resistance of nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod. 2007 Nov;33(11):1355-8. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2007.07.017] [PMID]
8. Rapisarda E, Bonaccorso A, Tripi TR, Fragalk I, Condorelli GG. The effect of surface treatments of nickel-titanium files on wear and cutting efficiency. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2000 Mar;89(3):363-8. [DOI:10.1016/S1079-2104(00)70103-X]
9. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2006 Mar;39(3):196-202. [DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01074.x] [PMID]
10. Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2013 Jun;46(6):590-7. [DOI:10.1111/iej.12037] [PMID]
11. Berman MH. Cutting efficiency in complete coverage preparation. J Am Dent Assoc. 1969 Nov;79(5):1160-7. [DOI:10.14219/jada.archive.1969.0063] [PMID]
12. Schäfer E, Oitzinger M. Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2008 Feb;34(2):198-200. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2007.10.009] [PMID]
13. Rzhanov EA, Belyaeva TS. Design features of rotary root canal instruments. ENDO-Endodontic Practice Today. 2012 Spring;6(1):29-39.
14. Agarwal S, Nagpal R, Singh UP. NiTi Endodontics: Contemporary Views Reviewed. Austin J Dent. 2018;5(4):1112. [DOI:10.26420/austinjdent.2018.1112]
15. Kataia MM, Kataia EM. Cutting efficiency of different cross sectional design protaperrotary instruments - in-vitro study. JIPBS. 2016;3(1):116-122.
16. Alattar S, Nehme W, Diemer F, Naaman A. The influence of brushing motion on the cutting behavior of 3 reciprocating files in oval-shaped canals. J Endod. 2015 May;41(5):703-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2014.12.016] [PMID]
17. Plotino G, Giansiracusa Rubini A, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cutting efficiency of Reciproc and waveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod. 2014 Aug;40(8):1228-30. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2014.01.041] [PMID]
18. Giansiracusa Rubini A, Plotino G, Al-Sudani D, Grande NM, Sonnino G, Putorti E, et al. A new device to test cutting efficiency of mechanical endodontic instruments. Med Sci Monit. 2014 Mar 6;20:374-8. [DOI:10.12659/MSM.890119] [PMID] [PMCID]
19. Moraes SH, Hancalves M, Filho MT, Filho IB. Cutting ability of nickel-titanium rotary systems ProTaper, Mtwo and K3. RSBO. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):177-82.
20. Fayyad DM, Elhakim Elgendy AA. Cutting efficiency of twisted versus machined nickel-titanium endodontic files. J Endod. 2011 Aug;37(8):1143-6. [DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2011.03.036] [PMID]
21. Cecchin D, de Sousa-Neto MD, Pecora JD, Gariba-Silva R. Cutting efficiency of four different rotary nickel: Titanium instruments. J Conserv Dent. 2011 Apr;14(2):117-9. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.82605] [PMID] [PMCID]
22. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5. [DOI:10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1]
23. Rubio J, Zarzosa JI, Pallarés A. Comparison of Shaping Ability of 10 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems: an In Vitro Study with AutoCad. Acta Stomatol Croat. 2017 Sep;51(3):207-16. [DOI:10.15644/asc51/3/4] [PMID] [PMCID]
24. Saleh ARM, Rashid AA. Canal Central Ability of Four Different Endodontic Single-File Systems in Simulated L-Shaped Resin Canals. Int J Dent Oral Health. 2016 Jul;2(7): [DOI:10.16966/2378-7090.213]
25. Dagna A, Gastaldo G, Beltrami R, Chiesa M, Poggio C. F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2016 Feb 12;6(3-4):69-74. [DOI:10.11138/ads/2015.6.3.069] [PMID] [PMCID]

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Send email to the article author

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

© 2022 CC BY-NC 4.0 | Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences

Designed & Developed by : Yektaweb