Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-8
Force and vibration generated in apical direction by three endodontic files of different kinematics during simulated canal preparation: An in vitro analytical study
During root canal shaping, pain could result from the high level of force or vibration generated. This could be related to file kinematics or geometry. In the present study, a comparison is made between forces and vibrations generated by endodontic files having three different kinematics. Square pillar resin blocks were used as simulated root canals to study forces and vibrations generated by the file having reciprocating motion (WaveOne Gold), transline motion (Self-Adjusting File), and rotary motion (2Shape). The forces and vibrations were measured using the dynamometer and accelerometer, respectively. Recorded time domain signals were processed in MATLAB to calculate the root mean square value. A one-way analysis of variance and Tukey’s test for post hoc comparison at 95% confidence interval were applied over the root mean square data of different files. From a statistical analysis of the file systems, the null hypotheses could not be accepted (P < 0.05) as 95% of the confidence interval. Differences between the means were statistically significant. The root mean square values of force and vibration for WaveOne Gold significantly exceeded those of Self-Adjusting File, 2Shape1, and 2Shape2 while the root mean square values of vibration for 2Shape1 and 2Shape2 were significantly less than the Self-Adjusting File; however, the root mean square value of force for the 2Shape2 was significantly more than for the Self-Adjusting File. Under the present experimental conditions, significant differences in the root mean square values of force and vibration of the three endodontic files of different kinematics have been observed. The WaveOne Gold file system generated higher apical force and vibration than the transline and rotary file system.
SmithTM. The Tales teeth tell : development, evolution, behavior. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
2.
GrossmanLI. A brief history of endodontics. J Endod1982; 8: S36–S40.
3.
GrandeNMPlotinoGButtiAet al. Cross-sectional analysis of root canals prepared with NiTi rotary instruments and stainless steel reciprocating files. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod2007; 103: 120–126.
4.
GergiROstaNBourbouzeGet al. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J2015; 48: 162–170.
5.
CheungGSPLiuCSY. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod2009; 35: 938–943.
6.
SchäferESchulz-BongertUTulusG. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod2004; 30: 432–435.
7.
PetersOAFicdMS. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod2004; 30: 559–567.
8.
BaekS-HLeeC-JVersluisAet al. Comparison of torsional stiffness of nickel-titanium rotary files with different geometric characteristics. J Endod2011; 37: 1283–1286.
9.
HaapasaloMShenY. Evolution of nickel-titanium instruments: from past to future. Endod Top2013; 29: 3–17.
10.
ÇaparIDArslanH. A review of instrumentation kinematics of engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J2016; 49: 119–135.
11.
YaredG. Canal preparation with only one reciprocating instrument without prior hand filing: a new concept. Int Dent2010; 2: 1–8.
12.
MetzgerZTeperovichEZaryRet al. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 1: respecting the root canal anatomy—a new concept of endodontic files and its implementation. J Endod2010; 36: 679–690.
13.
American Association of Endodontist. Glossary of endodontic terms. 9th ed.Chicago, IL: AAE.
14.
SchaferEDammaschkeT. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Top2009; 15: 75–90.
15.
YoungGRParashosPMesserHH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J2007; 52: S52–S63.
16.
MedhaAPatilSHoshingUet al. Evaluation of forces generated on three different rotary file systems in apical third of root canal using finite element analysis. J Clin Diagn Res2014; 8: 243–246.
17.
SungSYHaJHKwakSWet al. Torsional and cyclic fatigue resistances of glide path preparation instruments: G-File and PathFile. Scanning2014; 36: 500–506.
18.
TopçuoğluHSDüzgünSAktıAet al. Laboratory comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc and WaveOne files in canals with a double curvature. Int Endod J2017; 50: 713–717.
19.
AlrahabiMAlkadyA. Comparison of root canal apical transportation associated with Wave One, ProTaper Next, TF, and OneShape nickel–titanium instruments in curved canals of extracted teeth: a radiographic evaluation. Saudi J Dent Res2017; 8: 1–4.
20.
ZanescoCSóMVRSchmidtSet al. Apical transportation, centering ratio, and volume increase after manual, rotary, and reciprocating instrumentation in curved root canals: analysis by micro-computed tomographic and digital subtraction radiography. J Endod2017; 43: 486–490.
21.
BürkleinSJägerPGSchäferE. Apical transportation and canal straightening with different continuously tapered rotary file systems in severely curved root canals: F6 SkyTaper and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J2016; 50: 983–990.
22.
KimHCKwakSWCheungGSPet al. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc Versus WaveOne. J Endod2012; 38: 541–544.
23.
TambeVNagmodePAbrahamSet al. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent2014; 17: 561.
24.
BergmansLVan CleynenbreugelJBeullensMet al. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J2003; 36: 288–295.
25.
HofRPerevalovVEltananiMet al. The Self-adjusting File (SAF). Part 2: mechanical analysis. J Endod2010; 36: 691–696.
26.
CaparIDAltunsoyMArslanHet al. Fracture strength of roots instrumented with self-adjusting file and the ProTaper rotary systems. J Endod2014; 40: 551–554.
27.
KankarPKSharmaSCHarshaSP. Nonlinear vibration signature analysis of a high speed rotor bearing system due to race imperfection. J Comput Nonlin Dyn2012; 7: 011014.
HarandiAMirzaeeradSMehrabaniMet al. Incidence of dentinal crack after root canal preparation by ProTaper Universal, Neolix and SafeSider systems. Iran Endod J2017; 12: 432–438.
30.
ÖzyürekTTekVYılmazKet al. Incidence of apical crack formation and propagation during removal of root canal filling materials with different engine driven nickel-titanium instruments. Restor Dent Endod2017; 42: 332–341.
31.
JeonYParkSChoKet al. Vibration characteristics of endodontic motors with different motion: reciprocation and conventional rotation. J Korean Dent Assoc2014; 52: 734–743.
32.
ChoiD-MKimJ-WParkS-Het al. Vibrations generated by several nickel-titanium endodontic file systems during canal shaping in an ex vivo model. J Endod2017; 43: 1–4.
33.
PooleRLLeaSCDysonJEet al. Vibration characteristics of dental high-speed turbines and speed-increasing handpieces. J Dent2008; 36: 488–493.
34.
HaJ-HKwakSWVersluisAet al. The geometric effect of an off-centered cross-section on nickel–titanium rotary instruments: a finite element analysis study. J Dent Sci2017; 12: 173–178.
35.
KarataşEHicran AteşGDamla ÖzsuKet al. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, and WaveOne instruments. J Endod2015; 51: 261–264.
36.
NayakAKankarPKJainNet al. Force and vibration correlation analysis in the self-adjusting file during root canal shaping: an in-vitro study. J Dent Sci2018; 13: 184–189.
37.
TakamoriKFurukawaHMorikawaYet al. Basic study on vibrations during tooth preparations caused by high-speed drilling and Er:YAG laser irradiation. Laser Surg Med2003; 32: 25–31.
38.
SchraderCPetersOA. Analysis of torque and force with differently tapered rotary endodontic instruments in vitro. J Endod2005; 31: 120–123.
39.
HaJ-HKwakSWSigurdssonAet al. Stress generation during pecking motion of rotary nickel-titanium instruments with different pecking depth. J Endod2017; 43: 1688–1691.
40.
BeruttiEChiandussiGPaolinoDSet al. Canal shaping with waveone primary reciprocating files and protaper system: a comparative study. J Endod2012; 38: 505–509.
41.
HaJHLeeCJKwakSWet al. Geometric optimization for development of glide path preparation nickel-titanium rotary instrument. J Endod2015; 41: 916–919.
42.
KhalilakZFallahdoostADadresanfarBet al. Comparison of extracted teeth and simulated resin blocks on apical canal transportation. Iran Endod J2008; 3: 109–112.
43.
KinneyJHMarshallSJMarshallGW. The mechanical properties of human dentin: a critical review and re-evaluation of the dental literature. Crit Rev Oral Biol Med2003; 14: 13–29.
44.
SchneiderSW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol1971; 32: 271–275.
45.
CalbersonFLGDerooseCAJGHommezGMGet al. Shaping ability of GTTM rotary files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J2002; 35: 607–614.
GuptaVPandeyPMGuptaRKet al. Rotary ultrasonic drilling on bone: a novel technique to put an end to thermal injury to bone. Proc IMechE, Part H: J Engineering in Medicine2017; 231: 189–196.
52.
HaJ-HParkS-S. Influence of glide path on the screw-in effect and torque of nickel-titanium rotary files in simulated resin root canals. Restor Dent Endod2012; 37: 215–219.
