open access
메뉴
open access
메뉴
ISSN : 0376-4672
The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping abilities of LightSpeed, ProTaper-Universal, and hybrid technique using S-series of ProTaper-Universal and LigthSpeed. The 72 simulated root canals of J-shape were used and classified as flowing 3 groups according to the instrumentation methods; Group P of 24 canal blocks were prepared with ProTaper-Universal, Group L was prepared with LightSpeed, and Group H was prepared with hybrid technique (initial shaping with ProTaper-Universal S1 and S2 and apical shaping with LightSpeed from #25 to #50). A second-year resident of Endodontic department prepared the resin block canals to apical size #50 (F5 in Group P). The time lapses for instrumentation and the reduction of root canal curvature after shaping were measured. The pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed to evaluate and calculate the increased canal width and apical centering ratio. The results were as followings: Group L and H showed significant less instrumentation time than Group P (p < 0.05). The ProTaper system showed greater reduction of root canal curvature and working length diminishment than other methods (p < 0.05). LightSpeed system showed best canal curvature preserving characteristics. The Group P had greater instrumented widths at all levels examined (p < 0.05). Group L and Group H showed lower centering ratio (ability to preserve the canal center; the lower ratio means the better canal center preservation) than Group P (p < 0.05). Group H had the lowest centering ratio at the 1 mm level.
1. Ruddle CJ. Cleaning and shaping root canal systems. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds. Pathways of the pulp. 8th ed. St. Louis: CV Mosby 2002;231-291.
2. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988;14:346-351.
3. Schäfer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod 2004;30:432-435.
4. Chen JL, Messer HH. A comparison of stainless steel hand and rotary nickel-titanium instrumentation using a silicone impression technique. Aust Dent J 2002;47:12-20.
5. Garip Y, Gunday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2001;34:452-457.
6. Schäfer E. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickeltitanium instruments and stainless steel hand K-Flexofiles in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001;92:215-220.
7. West J. Endodontic Update 2006. J Esthet Restor Dent 2006;18(5):280-300.
8. Kim HC, Cheung GS, Lee CJ, Kim BM, Park JK, Kang SI. Comparison of forces generated during root canal shaping and residual stresses of three nickel-titanium rotary files by using a three-dimensional finite-element analysis. J Endod 2008;34(6):743-747.
9. Ankrum MT, Hartwell GR, Trutt JE. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved root of molars. J Endod 2004;30(4):234-237.
10. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using Ni-Ti rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36(4):288-295.
11. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(1):87-111.
12. Calberson FL, Deroose CA, Hommez GM, De Moor RJ. Shaping ability of ProTaper Nickel-Titanium files in simulated resin root canals. Int Endod J 2004;37(9):613-623.
13. 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):229-238.
14. Peters OA, Peters CI, Sch neberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J 2003;36(1):86-92.
15. Lee CH, Cho KM, Hong CU. Effect of various canal preparation techniques using rotary Nickel-Titanium files on the maintenance of canal curvature. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2003;28(1):41-49.
16. Lightspeed recommended technique guide. San Antonio, TX: Lightspeed Technology 1994.
17. Thompson SA, Dummer PH. Shaping ability of Lightspeed rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. J Endod 1997;23:698-702.
18. Knowles KI, Hammond NB, Biggs SG, Ibarrola JL. Incidence of instrument separation using LightSpeed rotary instruments. J Endod 2006;32:14-16.
19. Walsch H. The hybrid concept of nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(1):183-202.
20. Park SH, Cho KM, Kim JW. The Efficiency of the Ni-Ti Rotary files in Curved Simulated Canals Shaped by Novice Operators. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2003;28(2):146-155.
21. Hong ES, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of shaping ability between various hybrid instrumentation methods with ProTaper. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2006;31(1):11-19.
22. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod 2003;29(1):15-19.
23. Barbakow F. The LightSpeed System. Dent Clin North Am 2004;48(1):113-135.
24. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals Oral Surg 1971;32:271-275.
25. Schäfer E, Diez C, Hoppe W, Tepel J. Roentgenographic investigation of frequency and degree of canal curvatures in human permanent teeth. J Endod 2002;28(3):211-216.
26. Gunday M, Sazak H, Garip Y. A comparative study of three different root canal curvature measurement techniques and measuring the canal access angle in curved canals. J Endod 2005;31:796-798.
27. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root canal shape. J Endod 1988;14(6):273-277.
28. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechanical instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1999;25(6):441-445.
29. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18(2):269-296.
30. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J 2007;52(1 Suppl):S52-63.
31. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30(8):559-567.
32. Versümer J, Hülsmann M, Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation using Profile .04 and Lightspeed rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35(1):37-46.
33. Kim JW, Park JK, Hur B, Kim HC. Comparison of shaping ability using various Nickel?Titanium rotary files and hybrid technique. J Kor Acad Cons Dent 2007;32(6):530-541.
34. Hülsmann M, Gressmann G, Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation using FlexMaster and HERO 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36(5):358-366.
35. Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95(2):228-233.
36. Paqué F, Musch U, Hülsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005;38(1):8-16.
37. Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod 2002;28(4):316-321.
38. Kum KY, Spängberg L, Cha BY, Jung IY, Lee SJ, Lee CY. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000;26:719-723.
39. Thompson SA, Dummer PH. Shaping ability of Lightspeed rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 2. J Endod 1997;23:742-747.
40. Portenier IF, Lutz F, Barbakow F. Preparation of the apical part of the root canal by the Lightspeed and step-back techniques. Int Endod J 1998;31:103-111.
41. Turpin YL, Chagneau F, Bartier , Cathelineau G, Vulcain JM. Impact of torsional and bending inertia on root canal instruments. J Endod 2001;27(5):333-336.
42. Rollison S, Barnett F, Stevens RH. Efficacy of bacterial removal from instrumented root canals in vitro related to instrumentation technique and size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94(3):366-371.
43. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995;21:146-151.
44. Schäfer E, Lohmann D. Efficiency of rotary nickel?titanium FlexMaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K Flexofile-Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and instrumentation results in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2002;35:514-521.
45. Schäfer E, Schlingemann R. Efficiency of rotary nickeltitanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2003;36:208-217.
46. Griffiths IT, Bryant ST, Dummer PM. Canal shapes produced sequentially during instrumentation with Quantec LX rotary nickel-titanium instruments: a study in simulated canals. Int Endod J 2000;33:346-354.
47. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006;39:196-202.