Shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in simulated 3D-printed root canal models

David Christofzik; Andreas Bartols; Mahmoud Khaled Faheem; Doreen Schroeter; Birte Groessner-Schreiber; Christof E Doerfer

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0201129

Shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in simulated 3D-printed root canal models

PLoS One. 2018 Aug 1;13(8):e0201129. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201129. eCollection 2018.

Authors

David Christofzik¹, Andreas Bartols^{1

2}, Mahmoud Khaled Faheem¹, Doreen Schroeter¹, Birte Groessner-Schreiber¹, Christof E Doerfer¹

Affiliations

¹ Clinic for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, School for Dental Medicine, Christian-Albrechts-University Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
² Dental Academy for Continuing Professional Development Karlsruhe, Karlsruhe, Germany.

Abstract

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of four root canal preparation systems in newly developed 3D-printed root canal models.

Materials and methods: For this study, 1080 3D-printed acrylic resin blocks with nine different root canal configurations were produced. They were prepared with Reciproc R25 (#25), F6 SkyTaper (#25 and #30) F360 (#25 and #35) and One Shape (#25) (N = 30 per system). Pre- and post-instrumentation images were superimposed for evaluation of the centering ratio of the different systems. Ledges, instrument fractures and preparation times were also recorded. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc Tukey tests were conducted, comparing the mean canal centering ratios and the mean preparation times.

Results: There were significant differences between all systems regarding the centering ratios in the different root canal configurations (ANOVA p < 0.001). The root canal configuration had considerable effect on the centering ratio of the instruments. The best overall mean centering ratios were achieved with F6 SkyTaper #25 instruments especially in canal configurations with big curvature angles and radii, while F360 #35 was least centered especially in canals with small curvature angles and radii. Most ledges occurred with OneShape, while it was the significantly (p < 0.001) fastest preparation system (86.7 s (SD 13.53)) and Reciproc the significantly (p < 0.001) slowest (103.0 s (SD 20.67)).

Conclusion: 3D-printed root canals are suitable to produce challenging canal configurations and to investigate the limitations of root canal instruments. We found that all instruments caused canal transportations. However, F6 SkyTaper #25 files had better overall centering ratios than the other instruments. In canal configurations with small curvature radii, the centering ratio of some instruments is low and the probability for ledges is increased.

Publication types

Comparative Study
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Acrylic Resins
Computer Simulation
Humans
Models, Anatomic
Printing, Three-Dimensional*
Root Canal Therapy / instrumentation*
Time Factors

Substances

Acrylic Resins

Grants and funding

We acknowledge financial support by Land Schleswig-Holstein within the funding program “Open Access Publikationsfonds”. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. There is no grant number. URL:http://www.ub.uni-kiel.de/news/Publfonds.pdf.