Display options
Cite
Moazzami F, Khojastepour L, Nabavizadeh M, et al. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems. Iran Endod J. 2016;11(2):96-100doi: 10.7508/iej.2016.02.004.
Moazzami, F., Khojastepour, L., Nabavizadeh, M., & Seied Habashi, M. (2016). Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems. Iranian endodontic journal, 11(2), 96-100. https://doi.org/10.7508/iej.2016.02.004
Moazzami, Fariborz, et al. "Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems." Iranian endodontic journal vol. 11,2 (2016): 96-100. doi: https://doi.org/10.7508/iej.2016.02.004
Moazzami F, Khojastepour L, Nabavizadeh M, Seied Habashi M. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems. Iran Endod J. 2016;11(2):96-100. doi: 10.7508/iej.2016.02.004. Epub 2016 Mar 20. PMID: 27141215; PMCID: PMC4841342.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Iran Endod J. 2016;11(2):96-100. doi: 10.7508/iej.2016.02.004. Epub 2016 Mar 20.

Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems.

Iranian endodontic journal

Fariborz Moazzami, Leila Khojastepour, Mohammadreza Nabavizadeh, Mina Seied Habashi

Affiliations

  1. Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;
  2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran;
  3. Prevention of Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran.

PMID: 27141215 PMCID: PMC4841342 DOI: 10.7508/iej.2016.02.004

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the canal transportation of two single-file engine-driven systems, Neoniti and Reciproc, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS: Forty-five non-calcified roots with mature apices and apical curvature of 15-30 degrees were selected from extracted human maxillary molars for this study. Samples were randomly divided into two groups (n=20) and a control group (n=5) and canal preparation with either system was performed according to manufacturers' instructions. Pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT images were captured and the amount of canal transportation within the files was calculated at levels of 3, 4, and 5 mm from the apex. The independent sample t-test was used to analyze the statistical significance between the two groups. The level of significance was defined at 0.05.

RESULTS: Reciproc created more canal transportation compared to Neoniti in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions. The difference between the two systems was statistically significant in all evaluated distances from the apex (P<0.001). During this study fracture of one file (25/0.08) in the Neoniti group occurred.

CONCLUSION: Neoniti and Reciproc systems have significant difference in terms of creating canal transportation. Reciproc created more canal transportation in buccolingual and mesiodistal dimensions.

Keywords: Canal Transportation; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography; Neoniti; Reciproc; Root Canal Preparation

References

  1. J Endod. 2011 Oct;37(10 ):1412-6 - PubMed
  2. J Endod. 2013 Aug;39(8):1060-6 - PubMed
  3. J Endod. 2010 Jan;36(1):123-5 - PubMed
  4. Int Endod J. 2015 Jan;48(1):109-14 - PubMed
  5. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2011 Feb;111(2):244-50 - PubMed
  6. Int Endod J. 2005 Jan;38(1):8-16 - PubMed
  7. Int Endod J. 2003 Mar;36(3):199-207 - PubMed
  8. Iran Endod J. 2015;10(2):135-9 - PubMed
  9. Braz Dent J. 2009;20(5):376-81 - PubMed
  10. J Endod. 1997 Aug;23(8):503-7 - PubMed
  11. J Endod. 2014 Aug;40(8):1223-7 - PubMed
  12. Iran Endod J. 2014 Spring;9(2):117-22 - PubMed
  13. Dentomaxillofac Radiol. 2006 Jul;35(4):219-26 - PubMed
  14. Int Endod J. 2010 Dec;43(12):1063-8 - PubMed
  15. Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):174-9 - PubMed
  16. J Endod. 2007 Dec;33(12 ):1455-9 - PubMed
  17. Int Endod J. 2008 May;41(5):431-5 - PubMed
  18. J Endod. 2011 Dec;37(12):1687-90 - PubMed
  19. J Endod. 2008 Oct;34(10):1219-22 - PubMed
  20. J Am Dent Assoc. 2010 Oct;141 Suppl 3:3S-6S - PubMed
  21. Am J Dent. 2001 Oct;14(5):324-33 - PubMed
  22. J Endod. 2000 Apr;26(4):210-6 - PubMed
  23. Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):449-61 - PubMed
  24. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5 - PubMed
  25. J Endod. 2006 Nov;32(11):1031-43 - PubMed

Publication Types