Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
HOME | ABOUT US | EDITORIAL BOARD | AHEAD OF PRINT | CURRENT ISSUE | ARCHIVES | INSTRUCTIONS | SUBSCRIBE | ADVERTISE | CONTACT
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online: 1901

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         

 


 
ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 31  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 701-705
Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study


Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Pimpri, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Gaurav L Aidasani
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Sant Tukaram Nagar, Pimpri, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 018
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_102_18

Rights and Permissions

Background: Under axial loading, there is stress concentration around the cervical areas especially in the premolars because of their location in the arch. Aim: To evaluate and compare flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with ProTaper®Universal, ProTaper Next®, OneShape®, and WaveOne® endodontic file systems. Methods: Seventy-five mandibular premolar teeth with single straight canals were divided into five different groups (n = 15): Group A: Control, Group B: ProTaper Universal (PTU), Group C: ProTaper Next (PTN), Group D: OneShape, Group E: WaveOne. The teeth were instrumented as per the manufacturer's instructions. After obturation and core placement, the teeth were placed in a customized jig mounted on a universal testing machine where force was applied at 45° on the buccal cusp and the force required to fracture the teeth was noted. Results: Amongst all the instrumented groups, WaveOne showed the highest resistance to fracture (1065.56 ± 175.05) and the control group was 1104.13 ± 188.42. All groups showed a significant difference in the fracture load values with the control group. However, there was a statistically significant (P < 0.05) difference seen with WaveOne vs PTU and WaveOne vs OneShape. Conclusions: Root canals instrumented with reciprocating motion have better flexural fracture resistance than continuous rotary motion. Mandibular premolars when instrumented with ProTaper Universal and OneShape endodontic files showed similar fracture resistance, proving that dentin removal does not depend on the number of files used.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article

 
 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *
 
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed190    
    Printed42    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded14    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal