Advertisement

Duration of ultrasonic activation causing secondary fractures during the removal of the separated instruments with different tapers

  • Hakan ArslanEmail author
  • Ezgi Doğanay Yıldız
  • Gizem Taş
  • Nuray Akbıyık
  • Hüseyin Sinan Topçuoğlu
Original Article
  • 10 Downloads

Abstract

Objectives

The aim of the present study was to determine the effect of taper (.08, .06, and .04) of separated K3XF instruments on duration taken for the secondary fracture formation during ultrasonic activation.

Materials and methods

Ten 25/.08 K3XF (SybronEndo, Orange, CA, USA), ten 25/.06 K3XF, and ten 25/.04 K3XF instruments were used for the study. The apical 5 mm of the instruments was cut to simulate the fragments in root canals. Fragments of the instruments were sandwiched between two straight dentin blocks. An ultrasonic tip was used to cause a secondary fracture of the fragment. The time needed for the secondary fracture was recorded for each instrument. The data were statistically analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis H test (alpha = 0.05).

Results

Secondary fractures occurred in all instruments. In the .08 taper group, secondary fractures took longer than in the case of the .06 and the .04 taper groups (P < 0.05). There were no significant differences between the .06 and the .04 taper groups in terms of the time required for the occurrence of a secondary fracture (P > 0.05).

Conclusions

In the .08 taper group, secondary fracture took longer time than in the case of the .06 and the .04 taper groups due to its larger cross-sectional area involved.

Clinical relevance

Typically, when removing separated instruments, a much lower power setting is chosen. The purpose of this in vitro study was to determine which tapered files were more resilient to secondary fracture, thus allowing a higher power setting to be chosen. Thus, the results of the present study cannot be used in clinical practice. If the clinician knows the taper of the broken file, the clinician should be very careful with regard to secondary fractures when using ultrasonics to remove the separated smaller tapered instruments.

Keywords

K3XF Nickel titanium Secondary fracture Separated file Taper Ultrasonics 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

All authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

The research described in this article did not involve human participants.

References

  1. 1.
    Melo M, Pereira E, Viana A, Fonseca A, Buono V, Bahia M (2008) Dimensional characterization and mechanical behaviour of K3 rotary instruments. Int Endod J 41:329–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Haikel Y, Serfaty R, Bateman G, Senger B, Allemann C (1999) Dynamic and cyclic fatigue of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 25:434–440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL (1997) Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 23:77–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ullmann CJ, Peters OA (2005) Effect of cyclic fatigue on static fracture loads in ProTaper nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 31:183–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parashos P, Messer HH (2006) Rotary NiTi instrument fracture and its consequences. J Endod 32:1031–1043CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Choi J, Oh S, Kim Y-C, Jee K-K, Kum K, Chang S (2016) Fracture resistance of K3 nickel-titanium files made from different thermal treatments. Bioinorg Chem Appl 2016:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shen Y, Zhou H, Campbell L, Wang Z, Wang R, Du T, Haapasalo M (2014) Fatigue and nanomechanical properties of K3 XF nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J 47:1160–1167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shen Y, Cheung GS-p, Bian Z, Peng B (2006) Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod 32:61–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cheung G, Peng B, Bian Z, Shen Y, Darvell B (2005) Defects in ProTaper S1 instruments after clinical use: fractographic examination. Int Endod J 38:802–809CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ha J-H, Kim SK, Cohenca N, Kim H-C (2013) Effect of R-phase heat treatment on torsional resistance and cyclic fatigue fracture. J Endod 39:389–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gambarini G, Plotino G, Grande N, Al-Sudani D, De Luca M, Testarelli L (2011) Mechanical properties of nickel–titanium rotary instruments produced with a new manufacturing technique. Int Endod J 44:337–341CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iqbal MK, Kohli MR, Kim JS (2006) A retrospective clinical study of incidence of root canal instrument separation in an endodontics graduate program: a PennEndo database study. J Endod 32:1048–1052.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Truitt JE (2004) K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod 30:234–237.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200404000-00013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wu J, Lei G, Yan M, Yu Y, Yu J, Zhang G (2011) Instrument separation analysis of multi-used ProTaper Universal rotary system during root canal therapy. J Endod 37:758–763.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH (2003) Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: an experimental study. J Endod 29:756–763.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200311000-00017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ruddle CJ (2002) Nonsurgical retreatment. In: Cohen S, Burns RC (eds) Pathways of the pulp, 8th edn. Mosby, St. Louis, pp 875–929Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hulsmann M, Schinkel I (1999) Influence of several factors on the success or failure of removal of fractured instruments from the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol 15:252–258CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Shen Y, Peng B, Cheung GS (2004) Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 98:605–610.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1079210404002884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Terauchi Y, O’Leary L, Kikuchi I, Asanagi M, Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, Suda H (2007) Evaluation of the efficiency of a new file removal system in comparison with two conventional systems. J Endod 33:585–588.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Terauchi Y, O’Leary L, Yoshioka T, Suda H (2013) Comparison of the time required to create secondary fracture of separated file fragments by using ultrasonic vibration under various canal conditions. J Endod 39:1300–1305.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.021 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gencoglu N, Helvacioglu D (2009) Comparison of the different techniques to remove fractured endodontic instruments from root canal systems. Eur J Dent 3:90–95Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yoldas O, Oztunc H, Tinaz C, Alparslan N (2004) Perforation risks associated with the use of Masserann endodontic kit drills in mandibular molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 97:513–517.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1079210403005675 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH (2003) Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: clinical cases. J Endod 29:764–767.  https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200311000-00018 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Shahabinejad H, Ghassemi A, Pishbin L, Shahravan A (2013) Success of ultrasonic technique in removing fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals and its effect on the required force for root fracture. J Endod 39:824–828.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.02.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Boutsioukis C, Gogos C, Verhaagen B, Versluis M, Kastrinakis E, Van der Sluis LW (2010) The effect of root canal taper on the irrigant flow: evaluation using an unsteady computational fluid dynamics model. Int Endod J 43:909–916.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01767.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Zogheib C, Naaman A, Medioni E, Arbab-Chirani R (2012) Influence of apical taper on the quality of thermoplasticized root fillings assessed by micro-computed tomography. Clin Oral Investig 16:1493–1498.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-011-0638-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Goo HJ, Kwak SW, Ha JH, Pedulla E, Kim HC (2017) Mechanical properties of various heat-treated nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 43:1872–1877.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.05.025 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Fukumori Y, Nishijyo M, Tokita D, Miyara K, Ebihara A, Okiji T (2018) Comparative analysis of mechanical properties of differently tapered nickeltitanium endodontic rotary instruments. Dent Mater J 37:667–674.  https://doi.org/10.4012/dmj.2017-312 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hakan Arslan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ezgi Doğanay Yıldız
    • 2
  • Gizem Taş
    • 3
  • Nuray Akbıyık
    • 3
  • Hüseyin Sinan Topçuoğlu
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryHealth Sciences UniversityİstanbulTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryKırıkkale UniversityKırıkkaleTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryAtaturk UniversityErzurumTurkey
  4. 4.Department of Endodontics, Faculty of DentistryErciyes UniversityKayseriTurkey

Personalised recommendations