J Korean Acad Conserv Dent.  2006 Nov;31(6):477-484. 10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.477.

Comparison of screw-in effect of three NiTi file systems used by undergraduates

• Oh SH
• Park JK
• Hur B
• Kim HC

• KMID: 1986891
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/JKACD.2006.31.6.477

Abstract

The purposes of this study were to compare the apical terminus width of simulated curved root canal prepared with three NiTi file systems used by undergraduates for evaluation the effects of flute angle and pitch or radial land on reducing screw-in effect and to determine more safe NiTi file system for inexperienced operators. Fifty inexperienced undergraduate students prepared 150 simulated curved root canals in resin blocks with three NiTi file systems ; ProFile(R), Hero Shaper(R), K3(TM). The electric motor set at a speed of 300 rpm and torque of 30 in a 16 : 1 reduction handpiece was used. The simulated root canal was prepared to ISO #25 sizes with each file system. The scanned images of pre- and post-instrumented canal of resin block were superimposed. To evaluate the screw-in effect of three NiTi file systems, apical terminus width of root canal was measured from superimposed images and statistical analysis was performed. There were significant differences in three NiTi file systems. ProFile(R) had significantly smaller width than Hero Shaper(R) and K3(TM) (P < 0.05), but no significant difference was observed between K3(TM) and Hero Shaper(R). Under the condition of this study, active file system (Hero Shaper(R), K3(TM)) with variable pitch and helical angle had more screw-in effect than passive file system (ProFile(R)) with constant pitch and helical angle. It seems that the radial lands play more important role in reducing screw-in effect.

Keyword

NiTi file; Screw-in effect; Variable pitch; Helical angle; Radial land

MeSH Terms

Dental Pulp Cavity
Humans
Torque

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Measuring of apical terminus width using superimposed images.

• 

  Figure 2 Three representative superimposed images after instrumentation by each NiTi file systems.

Reference

1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974. 18:269–296.

2. Walton RE. Principle and practice of endodontics. 1996. 2nd ed. Philadelphia: WB Saunders;201–203.

3. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004. 30(8):559–567.

4. Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 1995. 21(4):173–176.

5. Schäfer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod. 2004. 30(6):432–435.

6. Coleman CL, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod. 1997. 23(4):232–235.

7. Garip Y, Gunday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2001. 34(6):452–457.

8. Schäfer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary Nickel-titanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001. 92(2):215–220.

9. Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod. 2002. 28(4):316–321.

10. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Trutt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved root of molars. J Endod. 2004. 30(4):234–237.

11. Johnson WB. Contemporary endodontics. 2002. Hong Kong: Dentsply Asia;1–6.

12. Machtou P, Ruddle CJ. Advancements in the design of endodontic instruments for root canal preparation. Alpha Omegan. 2004. 97(4):8–15.

13. Mounce RE. The K3 rotary nickel-titanium file system. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48:137–157.

14. Calas P. HEROShapers®: the adapted pitch concept. Endod Topic. 2005. 10:155–162.

15. Baumann MA, Roth A. Effect of experience on quality of canal preparation with rotary nickel-titanium files. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999. 88(6):714–718.

16. Gluskin AH, Brown DC, Buchanan LS. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J. 2001. 34(6):476–484.

17. Ayar LR, Love RM. Shaping ability of Profile and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments when used in a variable tip sequence in simulated curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2004. 37(9):593–601.

18. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. Int Endod J. 2000. 33(3):248–254.

19. Hsu YY, Kim S. The ProFile system. Dent Clin North Am. 2004. 48:69–85.

20. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003. 95(2):228–233.

21. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1999. 25(6):441–445.

22. Lloyd A. Root canal instrumentation with ProFile instruments. Endod Topic. 2005. 10:151–154.

23. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreul J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with Ni-Ti rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 2001. 14:324–333.

24. Gambarini G. The K3 rotary nickel titanium instrument system. Endod Topic. 2005. 10:179–182.

25. Schäfer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canal. Int Endod J. 2003. 36(3):199–207.