RESUMEN
AIMS: The aim of this study is to compare three different methods of measuring root canal curvature and its correlation with canal access angle (CAA) in curved mesiobuccal canals of permanent mandibular first molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty human mandibular first molars were used in this study. Standardized access cavities were prepared. After endodontic access, a size 10 K-file was placed in the mesiobuccal canal extending to the apical foramen, and radiographs were taken. Radiographs of each root canal were taken in buccolingual direction with the long axis of the root perpendicular to the central X-ray beam. After that, the radiographs were scanned with a computer Scanner. The angles were measured using the Schneider method, Weine's method, Lutein's method, and correlated with the CAA method. The angular and linear values used in this study were plotted, and the pertinent measurements were made using the program AutoCAD R12. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The resultant values were evaluated statistically using ANOVA test and Pearson correlation and multiple regression analyses (P = 0.001). RESULTS: Lutein's method is as effective as the Schneider's method, Wein's method and CAA. method in evaluating root canal curvature. CONCLUSIONS: Scheider/Wein/Luiten method, together with CAA method, may be considered as a reliable guideline for preoperative assessment of canal curvature.
RESUMEN
AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of Rotary ProTaper, One Shape and Wave One systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in curved root canals to find better instrumentation technique for maintaining root canal geometry. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total 30 freshly extracted premolars having curved root canals with at least 10 degrees of curvature were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. All teeth were scanned by CBCT to determine the root canal shape before instrumentation. In Group 1, the canals were prepared with Rotary ProTaper files, in Group 2 the canals were prepared with One Shape files and in Group 3 canals were prepared with Wave One files. After preparation, post-instrumentation scan was performed. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were obtained at three levels, 3 mm apical, 3 mm coronal and 8 mm apical above the apical foramen were compared using CBCT software. Amount of transportation and centering ability were assessed. The three groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant. RESULTS: All instruments maintained the original canal curvature with significant differences between the different files. Data suggested that Wave One files presented the best outcomes for both the variables evaluated. Wave One files caused lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than One Shape and Rotary ProTaper files. CONCLUSION: The canal preparation with Wave One files showed lesser transportation and better centering ability than One Shape and ProTaper.