Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study

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®,...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Gaurav L Aidasani, Sanjyot Mulay, Anamika Borkar
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications 2020-01-01
Series:Indian Journal of Dental Research
Subjects:
Online Access:http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2020;volume=31;issue=5;spage=701;epage=705;aulast=Aidasani
id doaj-f5000a9708824f7ab9d1da5712621ac7
record_format Article
spelling doaj-f5000a9708824f7ab9d1da5712621ac72021-02-03T06:11:57ZengWolters Kluwer Medknow PublicationsIndian Journal of Dental Research0970-92901998-36032020-01-0131570170510.4103/ijdr.IJDR_102_18Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro studyGaurav L AidasaniSanjyot MulayAnamika BorkarBackground: 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.http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2020;volume=31;issue=5;spage=701;epage=705;aulast=Aidasaniflexural loadfracture resistanceinstrumentationprotaper nextroot canal shapingwaveone
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Gaurav L Aidasani
Sanjyot Mulay
Anamika Borkar
spellingShingle Gaurav L Aidasani
Sanjyot Mulay
Anamika Borkar
Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study
Indian Journal of Dental Research
flexural load
fracture resistance
instrumentation
protaper next
root canal shaping
waveone
author_facet Gaurav L Aidasani
Sanjyot Mulay
Anamika Borkar
author_sort Gaurav L Aidasani
title Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: an in vitro study
publisher Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
series Indian Journal of Dental Research
issn 0970-9290
1998-3603
publishDate 2020-01-01
description 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.
topic flexural load
fracture resistance
instrumentation
protaper next
root canal shaping
waveone
url http://www.ijdr.in/article.asp?issn=0970-9290;year=2020;volume=31;issue=5;spage=701;epage=705;aulast=Aidasani
work_keys_str_mv AT gauravlaidasani comparativeevaluationofflexuralfractureresistanceofmandibularpremolarsafterinstrumentationwithfourdifferentendodonticfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT sanjyotmulay comparativeevaluationofflexuralfractureresistanceofmandibularpremolarsafterinstrumentationwithfourdifferentendodonticfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
AT anamikaborkar comparativeevaluationofflexuralfractureresistanceofmandibularpremolarsafterinstrumentationwithfourdifferentendodonticfilesystemsaninvitrostudy
_version_ 1724289020636168192