Assessment of canal walls after biomechanical preparation of root canals instrumented with protaper universalTM rotary system

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to examine the instrumented walls of root canals prepared with the ProTaper UniversalTM rotary system. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty mesiobuccal canals of human first mandibular molars were divided into 2 groups of 10 specimens each and embedded in a muffle system. The root canals were transversely sectioned 3 mm short of the apex before preparation and remounted in their molds. All root canals were prepared with ProTaper UniversalTM rotary system or with NitiflexTM files. The pre and postoperative images of the apical thirds viewed with a stereoscopic magnifier (X45) were captured digitally for further analysis. Data were analyzed statistically by Fisher's exact test and Chi-square test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: The differences observed between the instrumented and the noninstrumented walls were not statistically significant (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The NitiflexTM files and the ProTaper UniversalTM rotary system failed to instrument all the root canal walls

Geometric and dimensional characteristics of simulated curved canals prepared with proTaper instruments

OBJECTIVE: This study identified which regions of ProTaper instruments work during curved root canal instrumentation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve ProTaper instruments of each type, S1, S2, F1, and F2, were assessed morphometrically by measuring tip angle, tip length, tip diameter, length of each pitch along the cutting blades, and instrument diameter at each millimeter from the tip. Curved canals in resin blocks were explored with manual stainless steel files and prepared with ProTaper instruments until the apical end following four distinct sequences of instrumentation: S1; S1 and S2; S1, S2, and F1; S1, S2, F1, and F2. Image analysis was employed for measuring canal diameters. The diameters of the canals and diameters of the instruments were compared. Data were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's test. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found between the canals and instrument diameters (p>0.05). The largest diameters in the end-point of the instrumented canals were obtained with F1 and F2 instruments and in the initial and middle thirds with S1 and S2 instruments. CONCLUSIONS: All instruments worked at the tip and along their cutting blades, being susceptible to fail by torsion, fatigue, or the combination of these two mechanisms