ECE YAKIN, BERNA ASLAN, EMİNE ODABAŞI TEZER
Northwestern Medical Journal - 2023;3(3):147-155
INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to compare dentinal defects after root canal preparation with various reciprocating and continuous rotary files. METHODS: 90 extracted human mandibular incisor teeth were used. 15 teeth left unprepared and the remaning teeth were randomly divided into 5 experimental groups (n=15). Root canals were prepared with WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Hyflex EDM OneFile (Coltene/Whaledent, Altstätten, Switzerland), ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and ProTaper Universal (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary files. Then roots were sectioned at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex and evaluated with a stereomicroscope. Statistical analysis was performed with chi-square and Fischer’s Exact test. The significance level was set at 5%. Results: No defects were observed in the unprepared control group. Dentin defect were observed in all the experimental groups, especially in the apical region (3 mm). WaveOne and Hyflex EDM showed more dentinal defects than the control group (p<0.05); however, no significant difference was found between them (p>0.05). WaveOne caused significantly more dentinal defects than the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne Gold groups (p<0.05). Hyflex EDM caused more defects than ProTaper Next (p<0.05). There was no difference between the other experimental groups (p>0.05). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: All the rotary file systems used in this study caused dentinal defects regardless of the motion kinematics.
