Influence of endodontic cavity access on curved root canal preparation with ProDesign Logic rotary instruments

Abstract

Objective

This study evaluates whether endodontic cavity access into molars influences the chemomechanical preparation of curved root canals.

Materials and methods

Twenty mesiobuccal canals of maxillary molars were randomly divided into two experimental groups (n = 10), according to the type of endodontic access analyzed (conventional and minimally invasive). The preparations were made by a single operator, and the canals, after access, were prepared with Logic system (0.25, 0.04 taper) along the working length. Samples were scanned before and after canal preparation (SMX-90CT Plus (Shimadzu® microtomograph operated with 70 kV, 100 uA, FOV (XY) 13.3 mm, FOV (Z) 7.0 mm, and voxel size 0.013 mm/Pix)) to match canal volumes. Images were analyzed to evaluate surface areas, transport, and centralization at 3 mm from the canal entrance and 3 mm from the apex (OnDemand3DTM Dental software). Student’s t test with a significance level of 5% was used for the statistical analysis.

Results

Regardless of the position of the analyzed canals, there was no difference in the prepared area regarding the transport and centralization of the endodontic instrument between the two types of cavity accesses performed.

Conclusions

The conventional and minimally invasive access did not influence the action of the 0.25 and 0.04 taper instrument during the curved root canal preparation.

Clinical relevance

The type of endodontic access did not influence the action of the rotary instrument during the curved root canal preparation.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. 1.

    Sabeti M, Kazem M, Dianat O, Bahrololumi N, Beglou A, Rahimipour K, Dehnavi F (2018) Impact of access cavity design and root canal taper on fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth: an ex vivo investigation. J Endod 44(9):1402–1406. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2018.05.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. 2.

    Schroeder KP, Walton RE, Rivera EM (2002) Straight line access and coronal flaring: effect on canal length. J Endod 28(6):474–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. 3.

    Patel S, Rhodes J (2007) A practical guide to endodontic access cavity preparation in molar teeth. Br Dent J 203(3):133–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. 4.

    Tang W, Wu Y, Smales RJ (2010) Identifying and reducing risks for potential fractures in endodontically treated teeth. J Endod 36(4):609–617. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. 5.

    Lang H, Korkmaz Y, Schneider K, Raab WH (2006) Impact of endodontic treatments on the rigidity of the root. J Dent Res 85(4):364–368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Gluskin AH, Peters CI, Peters OA (2014) Minimally invasive endodontics: challenging prevailing paradigms. Br Dent J 216(6):347–353. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2014.201

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Bürklein S, Shäfer E (2015) Minimally invasive endodontics. Quintessence Int 46(2):119–124. https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.a33047

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. 8.

    Krishan R, Paque F, Ossareh A, Kishen A, Dao T, Friedman S (2014) Impacts of conservative endodontic cavity on root canal instrumentation efficacy and resistance to fracture assessed in incisors, premolars, and molars. J Endod 40(8):1160–1166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 9.

    Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A (2010) Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of Twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod 36(5):904–907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.038

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Alovisi M, Pasqualini D, Musso E, Bobbio E, Giuliano C, Mancino D, Scotti N, Berutti E (2018) Influence of contracted endodontic access on root canal geometry: an in vitro study. J Endod 44(4):614–620. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.11.010

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. 11.

    Bürklein S, Schäfer E (2013) Critical evaluation of root canal transportation by instrumentation. Endod Top 29(1):110–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE (2014) Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Next instruments with and without glide path. J Endod 40(12):2053–2056. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Schneider SW (1971) A comparison of canal preparation in straight and curved root canal. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 32(2):271–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes-Jr DL (1997) Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 23(2):77–85

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 15.

    Moore B, Verdelis K, Kishen A, Dao T, Friedman S (2016) Impacts of contracted endodontic cavities on instrumentation efficacy and biomechanical responses in maxillary molars. J Endod 42(12):1779–1783. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.08.028

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Torabinejad M, Walton RE (2010) Endodontia: princípios e práticas. In: Johnson WT, Williamson AE (eds) Isolamento, Abertura Coronária e Determinação do comprimento. Elsevier Editora Ltda, Rio de Janeiro, pp 236–239

    Google Scholar 

  17. 17.

    Clark D, Khademi J (2010) Modern molar endodontic access and directed dentin conservation. Dent Clin N Am 54(2):249–273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cden.2010.01.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. 18.

    Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE (1996) Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 22(7):369–375

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. 19.

    Pereira JR, McDonald A, Petrie A, Knowles JC (2013) Effect of cavity design on tooth surface strain. J Prosthet Dent 110(5):369–375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.prosdent.2013.08.004

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. 20.

    Plotino G, Grande NM, Isufi A, Ioppolo P, Pedullà E, Bedini R, Gambarini G, Testarelli L (2017) Fracture strength of endodontically treated teeth with different access cavity designs. J Endod 43(6):995–1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2017.01.022

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. 21.

    Versiani MA, Pascon EA, de Sousa CJ, Borges MA, Sousa-Neto MD (2008) Influence of shaft design on the shaping ability of 3 nickel-titanium rotary systems by means of spiral computerized tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 105(6):807–813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2007.12.012

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Bürklein S, Hiller C, Huda M, Schäfer E (2011) Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of Mtwo versus coated and uncoated EasyShape instruments in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 44(5):447–457. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01850.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. 23.

    Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E (2012) Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 45(5):449–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Lopes HP, Elias CN, Estrela C, Siqueira JF Jr (1998) Assessment of the apical transportation of root canals using the method of the curvature radius. Braz Dent J 9(1):39–45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. 25.

    Saberi N, Patel S, Mannocci F (2017) Comparison of centring ability and transportation between four nickel titanium instrumentation techniques by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 50(6):595–603. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12658

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. 26.

    Silva EJNL, Pacheco PT, Pires F, Belladonna FG, De-Deus G (2017) Microcomputed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation and centring ability of ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive systems. Int Endod J 50(7):694–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12667

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. 27.

    Peters OA, Morgental RD, Schulze KA, Paqué F, Kopper PM, Vier-Pelisser FV (2014) Determining cutting efficiency of nickel-titanium coronal flaring instruments used in lateral action. Int Endod J 47(6):505–513. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. 28.

    Antunes HS, Rôças IN, Alves FR, Siqueira JF Jr (2015) Total and specific bacterial levels in the apical root canal system of teeth with post-treatment apical periodontitis. J Endod 41(7):1037–1042. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.03.008

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR (2000) Leakage along apical root fillings in curved canals. Part I. Effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 26(4):210–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. 30.

    Wu MK, R’oris A, Barkis D, Wesselink PR (2000) Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 89(6):739–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. 31.

    Eaton JA, Clement DJ, Lloyd A, Marchesan MA (2015) Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of the influence of root canal system landmarks on access outline forms and canal curvatures in mandibular molars. J Endod 41(11):1888–1891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2015.08.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. 32.

    Harris SP, Bowles WR, Fok A, McClanahan SB (2013) An anatomic investigation of the mandibular first molar using micro-computed tomography. J Endod 39(11):1374–1378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.06.034

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. 33.

    Schäfer E, Dammaschke T (2006) Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Top 15(1):75–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. 34.

    Khademi A, Yazdizadeh M, Feizianfard M (2006) Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod 32(5):417–420

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Wu MK, Wesselink PR (1995) Efficacy of three techniques in cleaning the apical portion of curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 79(4):492–496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. 36.

    Barbizam JVB, Farinuk LF, Marchesan MA, Pecora JD, Sousa-Neto MD (2002) Effectiveness of manual and rotatory instrumentation techniques for cleaning flattened root canals. J Endod 28(5):365–366

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. 37.

    Pinheiro SR, Alcalde MP, Vivacqua-Gomes N, Bramante CM, Vivan RR, Duarte MAH, Vasconcelos BC (2018) Evaluation of apical transportation and centring ability of five thermally treated NiTi rotary systems. Int Endod J 51(6):705–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12881

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. 38.

    Bürklein S, Börjes L, Schäfer E (2014) Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with Hyflex CM and Revo-S rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J 47(5):470–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12171

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. 39.

    Marceliano-Alves MF, Sousa-Neto MD, Fidel SR, Steier L, Robinson JP, Pécora JD, Versiani MA (2015) Shaping ability of single-file reciprocating and heat-treated multifile rotary systems: a micro-CT study. Int Endod J 48(12):1129–1136. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12412

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

The work was supported by the authors.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Contributions

Gabiana Rodrigues Freitas: main researcher; contribution to carrying out the experiment and to analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the article

Thais Marchand Ribeiro: contribution to carrying out the experiment

Fabiana Soares Grecca Vilella: contribution to the experimental design, review, and approval of the final version

Tiago André Fontoura de Melo: contribution to the conception and design of the manuscript, review, and approval of the final version

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tiago André Fontoura de Melo.

Ethics declarations

This study was approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry of UFRGS and by the Research Ethics Committee of the same institution (Process CAAE 89366618.0.0000.5347).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed consent

For this type of study, formal consent is not required.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Freitas, G.R., Ribeiro, T.M., Vilella, F.S.G. et al. Influence of endodontic cavity access on curved root canal preparation with ProDesign Logic rotary instruments. Clin Oral Invest 25, 469–475 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-020-03390-6

Download citation

Keywords

  • Endodontic access
  • Minimally invasive
  • Nickel-titanium instruments
  • Root canal preparation
  • Microcomputed tomography