| Article ID | Journal | Published Year | Pages | File Type |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3150231 | Journal of Endodontics | 2015 | 5 Pages |
•New instruments have been proposed to make endodontic therapy faster.•Reciprocating systems are the latest innovations.•With single-file systems, the ability to create a glide path has increased.•Glide paths preserve the original trajectory of root canals.
IntroductionThe aim of this study was to evaluate the apical transportation, the centering ability, and the cleaning effectiveness of a reciprocating single-file system associated to different glide path techniques.MethodsThe mesial root canals of 52 mandibular molars were randomly distributed into 4 groups (n = 13) according to the different glide path techniques used before biomechanical preparation with Reciproc System (RS): KF/RS (sizes 10 and 15 K-files), NGP/RS (no glide path, only reciprocating system), PF/RS (sizes 13, 16, and 19 PathFile instruments), and NP (no preparation). Cone-beam computed tomography analysis was performed before and after instrumentation for apical third images acquisition. Apical transportation and its direction were evaluated by using the formula D = (X1 − X2) – (Y1 − Y2), and the centering ability was analyzed by the formula CC = (X1 − X2/Y1 − Y2 or Y1 − Y2/X1 − X2). The samples were submitted to histologic processing and analyzed under a digital microscope for debris quantification. The values were statistically analyzed (Kruskal-Wallis, the Dunn multiple comparisons test, P < .05).ResultsAll groups had similar apical transportation values, with no significant difference among them (P > .05). Groups had a tendency toward transportation in the mesial direction. No technique had perfect centering ability (=1.0), with no significant difference among them. KF/RS had larger amount of debris, with statistically significant difference in comparison with NGP/RS (P > .05).ConclusionsThe different glide path techniques promoted minimal apical transportation, and the reciprocating single-file system tested remained relatively centralized within the root canal. Also, the different techniques interfered in the cleaning effectiveness of the reciprocating system.
