Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics

The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry (대한치과보존학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Preference of undergraduate students after first experience on nickel-titanium endodontic instruments

  • Kwak, Sang Won (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute) ;
  • Cheung, Gary Shun-Pan (Area of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong) ;
  • Ha, Jung-Hong (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Kim, Sung Kyo (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Kyungpook National University) ;
  • Lee, Hyojin (Climate Research Department, APEC Climate Center) ;
  • Kim, Hyeon-Cheol (Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, Pusan National University, Dental Research Institute)
  • Received : 2016.03.08
  • Accepted : 2016.05.12
  • Published : 2016.08.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Objectives: This study aimed to compare two nickel-titanium systems (rotary vs. reciprocating) for their acceptance by undergraduate students who experienced nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments for the first time. Materials and Methods: Eighty-one sophomore dental students were first taught on manual root canal preparation with stainless-steel files. After that, they were instructed on the use of ProTaper Universal system (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer), then the WaveOne (WO, Dentsply Maillefer). They practiced with each system on 2 extracted molars, before using those files to shape the buccal or mesial canals of additional first molars. A questionnaire was completed after using each file system, seeking students' perception about 'Ease of use', 'Flexibility', 'Cutting-efficiency', 'Screwing-effect', 'Feeling-safety', and 'Instrumentation-time' of the NiTi files, relative to stainless-steel instrumentation, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. They were also requested to indicate their preference between the two systems. Data was compared between groups using t-test, and with Chi-square test for correlation of each perception value with the preferred choice (p = 0.05). Results: Among the 81 students, 55 indicated their preferred file system as WO and 22 as PTU. All scores were greater than 4 (better) for both systems, compared with stainless-steel files, except for 'Screwing-effect' for PTU. The scores for WO in the categories of 'Flexibility', 'Screwing-effect', and 'Feeling-safety' were significantly higher scores than those of PTU. A significant association between the 'Screwing-effect' and students' preference for WO was observed. Conclusions: Novice operators preferred nickel-titanium instruments to stainless-steel, and majority of them opted for reciprocating file instead of continuous rotating system.

Keywords

References

  1. Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas IN, Alves FR, Silva MG. Bacteria in the apical root canal of teeth with primary apical periodontitis. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009;107:721-726. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2009.01.042
  2. Sakamoto M, Siqueira JF Jr, Rocas IN, Benno Y. Molecular analysis of the root canal microbiota associated with endodontic treatment failures. Oral Microbiol Immunol 2008;23:275-281. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-302X.2007.00423.x
  3. Walia HM, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of Nitinol root canal files. J Endod 1988;14:346-351. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(88)80196-1
  4. Cheung GS, Liu CS. A retrospective study of endodontic treatment outcome between nickel-titanium rotary and stainless steel hand filing techniques. J Endod 2009;35:938-943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.04.016
  5. Schafer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod 2004;30:432-435. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200406000-00014
  6. Setzer FC, Kwon TK, Karabucak B. Comparison of apical transportation between two rotary file systems and two hybrid rotary instrumentation sequences. J Endod 2010;36:1226-1229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.03.011
  7. Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod 2010;36:904-907. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.12.038
  8. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008;41:339-344. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01351.x
  9. Ruddle CJ. Canal preparation: single-file shaping technique. Dent Today 2012;31:124, 126-129.
  10. Park SK, Kim YJ, Shon WJ, You SY, Moon YM, Kim HC, Lee W. Clinical efficiency and reusability of the reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments according to the root canal anatomy. Scanning 2014;36:246-251.
  11. Jin SY, Lee W, Kang MK, Hur B, Kim HC. Single file reciprocating technique using conventional nickeltitanium rotary endodontic files. Scanning 2013;35:349-354. https://doi.org/10.1002/sca.21074
  12. Martins RC, Seijo MO, Ferreira EF, Paiva SM, Ribeiro Sobrinho AP. Dental students' perceptions about the endodontic treatments performed using NiTi rotary instruments and hand stainless steel files. Braz Dent J 2012;23:729-736. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402012000600018
  13. Arbab-Chirani R, Vulcain JM. Undergraduate teaching and clinical use of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments: a survey of French dental schools. Int Endod J 2004;37:320-324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00805.x
  14. Sonntag D, Guntermann A, Kim SK, Stachniss V. Root canal shaping with manual stainless steel files and rotary Ni-Ti files performed by students. Int Endod J 2003;36:246-255. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00661.x
  15. Peru M, Peru C, Mannocci F, Sherriff M, Buchanan LS, Pitt Ford TR. Hand and nickel-titanium root canal instrumentation performed by dental students: a microcomputed tomographic study. Eur J Dent Educ 2006;10:52-59. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-0579.2006.00395.x
  16. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005;38:743-752. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01010.x
  17. Schafer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. part 1. shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2003;36:199-207. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00643.x
  18. Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod 2002;28:316-321. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200204000-00014
  19. Wolcott S, Wolcott J, Ishley D, Kennedy W, Johnson S, Minnich S, Meyers J. Separation incidence of protaper rotary instruments: a large cohort clinical evaluation. J Endod 2006;32:1139-1141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.015
  20. Generali L, Righi E, Todesca MV, Consolo U. Canal shaping with WaveOne reciprocating files: influence of operator experience on instrument breakage and canal preparation time. Odontology 2014;102:217-222. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10266-013-0118-1
  21. Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 2012;38:541-544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.11.014
  22. You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37:1296-1300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.05.021
  23. Bonessio N, Pereira ES, Lomiento G, Arias A, Bahia MG, Buono VT, Peters OA. Validated finite element analyses of WaveOne endodontic instruments: a comparison between M-Wire and NiTi alloys. Int Endod J 2015;48:441-450. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12333

Cited by

  1. Undergraduate dentistry students’ perception of difficulties regarding endodontic treatment pp.13291947, 2018, https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12290
  2. First Experience of Rotary Nickel Titanium Root Canal Instrumentation Performed by Undergraduate Students and General Dentists vol.3, pp.2, 2016, https://doi.org/10.15436/2379-1705.17.1573
  3. A comparative study of root canal shaping using protaper universal and protaper next rotary files in preclinical dental education vol.7, pp.None, 2016, https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.7419
  4. Fracture of endodontic instruments - Part 1: Literature review on factors that influence instrument breakage vol.75, pp.10, 2016, https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2020/v75no10a4
  5. Body temperature fatigue behaviour of reciprocating and rotary glide path instruments in sodium hypochlorite solutions alone or combined with etidronate vol.47, pp.3, 2021, https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12504