Home > Journals > Minerva Dental and Oral Science > Past Issues > Articles online first > Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 Jul 15

CURRENT ISSUE
 

JOURNAL TOOLS

eTOC
To subscribe
Submit an article
Recommend to your librarian
 

ARTICLE TOOLS

Publication history
Reprints
Permissions
Cite this article as
Share

 

 

Minerva Dental and Oral Science 2021 Jul 15

DOI: 10.23736/S2724-6329.21.04523-X

Copyright © 2021 EDIZIONI MINERVA MEDICA

language: English

Light emitting diode assessment of dentinal microcracks after root canal preparation with 4 different heat-treated file systems

Sanket H. PANDEY , Pallav M. PATNI, Pradeep JAIN, Swadhin RAGHUWANSHI, Gauri SANWATSARKAR, Arpita CHATURVEDI

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sri Aurobindo College of Dentistry, Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India


PDF


AIM: The purpose of this research was to evaluate the dentinal microcracks formation after root canal preparation with Hyflex EDM (Electrical Discharge Machining), Neolix Neoniti A1 EDM, Wave One Gold and Edge File X1 under illumination and magnification.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: 150 mandibular molars with 2 different mesial canals extracted for periodontal reasons were included in the study. The samples were decoronated at 15mm from the apex using a carborundum disc under copious water cooling. Access opening was done using a round bur. Sectioning of the distal root was done. Patency of mesial canals were checked using a 10K file. The samples were randomly divided into 5 groups using simple randomization technique. Group 1: Uninstrumented group. Group 2: Hyflex EDM(HEDM). Group 3: Neolix Neoniti A1(NA1). Group 4: Wave One Gold (WOG). Group 5: Edge File X1(EFX). Biomechanical preparation in all groups was done following the manufacturer’s instructions. Sectioning was done at 3mm, 6mm, and 9mm from the apex using a 0.13mm circular saw under copious water cooling. Sections were observed at 16x magnification under the dental operating microscope and illumination using a Light Emitting Diode (LED) curing light. The chi-square test was used to determine the statistically significant differences at P < .05. Intergroup comparison was done by the Post hoc Tukey test.
RESULTS: Total of 1800 images were analyzed. The highest number of cracks was seen in Neoniti A1 group (43.33%) while the least number of cracks were seen with Wave One Gold group (13.33%). There was statistically difference between reciprocating groups and the rotary group.
CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that all the heat-treated file systems produced dentinal microcracks. Rotary group(NA1 and HEDM) produced significantly more cracks than Reciprocation group (WOG and EFX).


KEY WORDS: Dentinal defects; Mandibular molars; Mesial canals; Root canal preparation

top of page