The minimum residual root thickness after using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden drills: A cone beam computerized tomography study

13Citations
Citations of this article
44Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the minimum residual root thickness (MRRT) of the danger zone after preflaring of the mesio-buccal (MB) canal of mandibular first molars using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden (GG) drills as coronal shapers by cone beam computerized tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, the initial CBCT scans of 75 MB canals of mandibular first molars were provided within 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm of the furcation level. The samples were divided into three groups. The samples of ProTaper and RaCe groups were prepared up to F2 and #25.04 as the master apical file (MAF), respectively. The coronal preparation of the samples in the GG groupwas done using GG drills #2, #3 and #4 and canals were prepared till MAF # 25. After obtaining the postinstrumentation images, the MRRT and the amount of removed dentin were analyzed by t-test and ANOVA statistical analyses. Results: The GG drills removed significantly more dentin than RaCe at all the sections (P < 0.05) and more than ProTaper at 3 mm from the furcation. Statistically there was no significant difference between ProTaper and RaCe groups (P > 0.05). There was no significant difference in MRRT between the groups (P > 0.05). The mean MRRT was not < 0.75 mm at all sections. Conclusion: Based on the results of this study, when an appropriate root thickness is initially present, all of the instruments that were investigated may safely be used as coronal shapers in MB canals of mandibular first molars.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Akhlaghi, N. M., Bajgiran, L. M., Naghdi, A., Behrooz, E., & Khalilak, Z. (2015). The minimum residual root thickness after using ProTaper, RaCe and Gates-Glidden drills: A cone beam computerized tomography study. European Journal of Dentistry, 9(2), 228–233. https://doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.156833

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free