A Comparison of Mesial Molar Root Canal Preparations Using Two Engine-Driven Instruments and the Balanced-Force Technique

• Published in: Journal of endodontics Vol. 27; no. 10; pp. 627 - 631
• Main Authors: Imura, Noboru, Kato, Augusto S., Novo, Neil F., Hata, Gin-Ichiro, Uemura, Manabu, Toda, Tadao
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.10.2001
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; Dental High-Speed Equipment; Dental Instruments; Dentistry; Humans; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted; Mandible; Molar; Nickel; Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation; Statistics, Nonparametric; Time Factors; Titanium
• ISSN: 0099-2399; 1878-3554
• DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200110000-00008

The purpose of this study was to compare the effects of two engine-driven, nickel-titanium instrument systems with hand files in the final shape of slight and moderately curved canals. A total of 72 mesial roots of extracted human mandibular molars were divided into three groups: ProFile .04 taper, Pow-R rotary systems, and Flex-R hand-filing technique. The roots were mounted and cross-sectioned at two different horizontal levels using a modified Bramante technique. Pre- and postinstrumented cross-sectional roots were imaged, recorded, and computer analyzed. Results showed that, at the middle third, in almost all groups, there was a tendency of cutting more toward the mesial side with only one exception: Pow-R cut more to the distal side (danger zone) (p <0.02). At the apical third, Flex-R (p <0.03) and ProFile (0.001) transported to the mesial side (danger zone) when the curvature increased. When the three techniques were compared analyzing each side and considering the two groups of curvature, at the middle third in the moderately curved-canal group, Flex-R cut statistically more than Pow-R toward the lingual side. The other comparisons showed no statistically significant difference. When the techniques were compared in relation with the degree of curvature, in the apical third, ProFile .04 cut statistically more toward the mesial side in the moderately curved canal group than in the slightly curved canal group. The other comparisons showed no statistically significant difference. Canal preparation time was shorter with hand instrumentation (p <.05) in a few instances.