بررسی مقایسه میزان ترانسپورت کانال ریشه و توانایی حفظ مرکزیت فایل‌های روتاری Mtwo و Denco با استفاده از توموگرافی کامپیوتری اشعه مخروطی

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 دندانپزشک، دانشکده‌ی دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه، کرمانشاه، ایران

2 دستیار تخصصی، گروه پریودنتیکس، دانشکده‌ی دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی اصفهان، اصفهان، ایران

3 استادیار، گروه اندودانتیکس، دانشکده‌ی دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه، کرمانشاه، ایران

4 استادیار، گروه رادیولوژی دهان، فک و صورت، دانشکده‌ی دندانپزشکی، دانشگاه علوم پزشکی کرمانشاه، کرمانشاه، ایران.

10.22122/jids.2025.45620.1020

چکیده

مقدمه: آماده‌سازی کانال ریشه‌ی دندان، یکی از مراحل اصلی در درمان ریشه است که بر روی میزان موفقیت درمان مؤثر می‌باشد. جابجایی مسیر اصلی کانال یا ترانسپورت کانال در اثر برداشت بیش از حد یا نامتقارن عاج توسط ابزارها ایجاد می‌شود. هدف از انجام این مطالعه، مقایسه‌ی میزان ترانسپورت ایجاد شده در کانال ریشه و توانایی حفظ مرکزیت میان دو فایل روتاری Mtwo و Denco در کانال مزیوباکال دارای انحنای 20 تا 40 درجه دندان مولر مندبیل انسانی، توسط تصویربرداری توموگرافی کامپیوتری اشعه‌ی مخروطی (Cone Beam Computed Tomography) CBCT بود.
مواد و روش‌ها: این مطالعه‌ی تجربی- آزمایشگاهی با 50 دندان مولر مندیبل به دلایل پریودنتال یا پوسیدگی کشیده شده بودند و دارای انحنای20 تا 40 درجه به روش تکنیک اشنایدر بودند، به ۲ گروه تقسیم شدند. گروه اول توسط فایل روتاری Mtwo و گروه دوم توسط فایل روتاری Denco آماده‌سازی و شکل‌دهی شدند. رادیوگرافی CBCT قبل و بعد از اینسترومنتیشن در فواصل 1، 3، 5 و 7 میلی‌متری از اپکس برای تعیین میزان ترانسپورت ایجاد شده در کانال و توانایی حفظ مرکزیت فایل ارزیابی گردید. داده‌ها با آزمون‌های آماری T-test و Mann-Whitneyتجزیه و تحلیل شدند (0/05 = α).
یافته‌ها: ددر تمام فواصل از آپکس بین دو فایل روتاری Mtwo و Denco تفاوت آماری معنی‌داری در میزان ترانسپورت کانال و توانایی حفظ مرکزیت فایل‌ها نشان ندادند (0/05 < P).
نتیجه‌گیری: تتفاوت معنی‌داری بین ترانسپورت ایجاد شده و توانایی حفظ مرکزیت بین سیستم‌های روتاری Mtwo و Denco وجود ندارد و هر دو فایل برای آماده‌سازی کانال‌های منحنی ایمن می‌باشند.

تازه های تحقیق

مهدی ضیایی: PubMed, Google Scholar

سید امیرحسین حجازی: PubMed, Google Scholar

صابر خزاعی: PubMed, Google Scholar

مریم قاضی زاده: PubMed, Google Scholar

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Comparison of Root Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Mtwo and Denco Rotary Files Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography

نویسندگان [English]

  • Mehdi Ziaei 1
  • Seyed Amir Hossein Hejazi 2
  • Saber Khazaei 3
  • Maryam Ghazizadeh 4
1 Dentist, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
2 Postgraduate Student, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
3 Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
4 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kermanshah University of Medical Sciences, Kermanshah, Iran
چکیده [English]

Introduction: Root canal preparation is a crucial phase of endodontic therapy, significantly impacting treatment outcomes. One of the main procedural complications is canal transportation, was. This study aimed to compare canal transportation and canal-centering ability of two rotary file systems, Mtwo and Denco, in mesio-buccal canals of extracted human mandibular molars with curvatures ranging from 20° to 40°, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: This experimental in-vitro study was conducted in Kermanshah in 2022. Fifty extracted mandibular molars with 20–40° curvature (measured by Schneider’s technique), extracted due to periodontal disease or caries, were divided into two groups. The first group was instrumented with Mtwo rotary files and the second with Denco rotary files. CBCT scans were obtained before and after instrumentation at 1, 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apex to assess canal transportation and the instrument's centering ability. Data were analyzed using Independent T-test and Mann-Whitney U test (α = 0.05).
Results: At all measured levels from the apex, no statistically significant differences were found between Mtwo and Denco systems in terms of canal transportation and centering ability (P > 0.05).
Conclusion: No significant difference exists in the induced transportation or centering ability between the Mtwo and Denco rotary systems. Both file systems can be considered safe for preparing curved root canals.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Root canal preparation
  • Cone-Beam Computed Tomography
  • Dental instruments

مراجع

  1. Mahdavisefat E, Kazemi A, Moghtaderi Esfahani E. Endodontic Management of Three-rooted Mandibular First Premolar Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: A Case Report. Iran Endod J 2023; 18(2): 122-5.
  2. Karabucak B, Gatan AJ, Hsiao C, Iqbal MK. A comparison of apical transportation and length control between EndoSequence and Guidance rotary instruments. J Endod 2010; 36(1): 123-5.
  3. Nazari Moghaddam K, Mehran M, Farajian Zadeh H. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J 2009; 4(2): 53-7.
  4. Hartmann MS, Barletta FB, Camargo Fontanella VR, Vanni JR. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: a comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007; 33(8): 962-5.
  5. Mesgarani A, Hamidi MR, Haghanifar S, Naiemi S, Bijani A. Comparison of apical transportation and centering ability of Mtwo and Reciproc R25 in severely curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2018; 15(1): 57-62.
  6. Pujari MD, Pujar MA, Makandar SD. Endodontic perforations: A review. Indian Journal of Dental Sciences 2012; 4(Supp 1): 136.
  7. Mamede-Neto I, Borges AH, Guedes OA, de Oliveira D, Pedro FL, Estrela C. Root canal transportation and centering ability of nickel-titanium rotary instruments in mandibular premolars assessed using cone-beam computed tomography. Open Dent J 2017; 11: 71-8.
  8. Lopes HP, Gambarra-Soares T, Elias CN, Siqueira JF Jr, Inojosa IF, Lopes WS, et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of rotary instruments made of conventional nickel-titanium wire, M-wire, or nickel-titanium alloy in R-phase. J Endod 2013; 39(4): 516-20.
  9. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2004; 37(4): 229-38.
  10. Taşdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, Unal O. Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J 2005; 38(6): 402-8.
  11. Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. 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. 2010; 36(5): 904-7.
  12. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: a comparative study. J Endod 2012; 38(4): 505-9.
  13. Özer SY. Comparison of root canal transportation induced by three rotary systems with noncutting tips using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 111(2): 244-50.
  14. Hatam R, Khavid A, Bahrampour E, Godiny M, Najafi A. Transportation of Severely Curved Canals: Comparison of One Shape and K3 Rotary Systems. Ann Med Health Sci Res 2019; 9: 430-4.
  15. Sarraf P, Kiomarsi N, Taheri FH, Moghaddamzade B, Dibaji F, Kharazifard MJ. Apical Transportation of Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars Following Root Canal Preparation with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment. Front Dent 2019; 16(4): 272-8.
  16. Honardar K, Vesal N, Hamze F, Nazarimoghadam K, Labaf H, Shakeri L. A Comparison of Mtwo Rotary File with K-File on Negotiation of Second Mesiobuccal Canal in Maxillary First Molar: A Clinical Study. IEJ 2008; 3(2): 29-32.
  17. Mokhtari H, Niknami M, Sohrabi A, Habibivand E, Mokhtari Zonouzi HR, Rahimi S, Zand V. Cone-beam computed tomography comparison of canal transportation after preparation with biorace and mtwo rotary instruments and hand K-Flexofiles. Iran Endod J 2014; 9(3): 180-4.
  18. Yang G, Yuan G, Yun X, Zhou X, Liu B, Wu H. Effects of two nickel-titanium instrument systems, Mtwo versus ProTaper universal, on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011; 37(10): 1412-6.
  19. Patel S, Dawood A, Ford TP, Whaites E. The potential applications of cone beam computed tomography in the management of endodontic problems. Int Endod J 2007; 40(10): 818-30.
  20. Versiani MA, Pécora JD, de Sousa-Neto MD. Flat-oval root canal preparation with self-adjusting file instrument: a micro-computed tomography study. J Endod 2011; 37(7): 1002-7.
  21. Mathew A, Burahmah A, Fanas SA, Mahmoud O, Jaber MA, Natarajan PM, et al. An In-Vitro Comparative Analysis on Root Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, Angle of Curvature Using XP-Endo Shaper and WaveOne Gold Rotary Systems-A CBCT Study. Sys Rev Pharm 2021; 12(1): 1572-80.
  22. Praveen D, Mohammad T, Satish RK, Amarapu K, Prasad KD, Bonu S. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of protaper next, neoniti, and r-motion by cbct analysis in the curved root canals of permanent mandibular first molar: an in vitro study. Avicenna J Dent Res 2024; 16(4): 197-204.
  23. Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17(1): 35-9.
  24. Mamede-Neto I, Borges ÁH, Alencar AHG, Duarte MAH, Sousa Neto MD, Estrela C. Multidimensional analysis of curved root canal preparation using continuous or reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments. Open Dent J 2018; 12: 32-45.
  25. Turkaydin ED, Gunday M, Ovecoğlu SH, Garıp Y. Canal centring ability of ProTaper and Mtwo rotary systems in curved canals. Balk J Dent Med 2014; 18(2): 89-92.
  26. Vallaeys K, Chevalier V, Arbab-Chirani R. Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo-S™, assessed by micro-computed tomography. Odontology 2016; 104(1): 83-8.
  27. Madani ZS, Haddadi A, Haghanifar S, Bijani A. Cone-beam computed tomography for evaluation of apical transportation in root canals prepared by two rotary systems. Iran Endod J 2014; 9(2): 109-12.
  28. Khalilak Z, Alavi K, Akhlaghi NM, Mehrvarzfar P, Dadresanfar B. Canal-centring ability of three rotary file systems in simulated curved canals: a comparative study. Indian J Dent Res 2009; 20(4): 400-3.
  29. Busquim SSK, França RC, Siqueira EL, dos Santos M. Evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of two nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Clin Lab Res Den 2014; 20(1): 10-5.
  30. El Batouty KM, Fekry WW. Canal centering ability of M two, Twisted Files and Revo-S nickel-titanium rotary instruments. ENDO (Lond Engl) 2012; 2: 125-30.
  31. Kapse BS, Nagmode PS, Vishwas JR, Karpe HB, Basatwar HV, Godge SP. Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Three Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary File Systems. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 2021; 9(D): 30-6.
  32. Salemi F, Shokri A, Karkeabadi H, Tapak L, Bashari M. Comparison of Transportation within Reciproc and Neolix Rotary Systems in Curved Root Canals Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography [in Persian]. Avicenna J Clin Med 2019; 25(4): 222-9.
  33. Canga M, Malagnino I, Malagnino G, Malagnino V. A comparison of mtwo and race rotary instruments in the preparation of curved canals. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21(2): 124-8.
مجله دانشکده دندان‌پزشکی اصفهان
دوره 21، شماره 3
دوره 21، شماره 3، مهر 1404 (در حال تکمیل)
مهر 1404

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار