RESUMEN
Introduction: The longevity of an endodontically treated tooth depends on fracture resistance by preserving more remaining dentin thickness. The aim of this study is to determine which file system preserves more remaining dentin thickness. Materials and Methods: Protaper universal, M-two, Protaper Next, Trunatomy, I-Race and mandibular first premolar. The removed dentin thickness during instrumentation of each file system was noted by taking the difference of RDT of pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation with the aid of CBCT. Results and Discussion: TRN [Group-4] shows the least aggressive cutting with maximal preservation of remaining dentin thickness at 3 mm and 6 mm from the apex at both mesiodistal and buccolingual dimensions. M-two [Group-2] shows maximum removed dentin thickness at 3 mm from the apex both mesiodistal dimension and buccolingual dimension. PTU [Group-1] shows maximum removed dentin thickness at 6 mm from the apex at mesiodistal dimension. M-two [Group-2] shows maximum removed dentin thickness at 6 mm from the apex at the buccolingual dimension. Conclusion: In this study, it is concluded that the Trunatomy file system preserves more remaining dentin thickness both mesiodistally and buccolingually both 3 mm and 6 mm from the apex.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of remaining dentin thickness (RDT) is paramount for restorative decisions and treatment planning of vital teeth to avoid any pulpal injury. This diagnostic accuracy study compared the validity and patient satisfaction of an electrical impedance based device Prepometer™ (Hager & Werken, Duisburg, Germany) versus intraoral digital radiography for the estimation of remaining dentin thickness in carious posterior permanent teeth. METHODS: Seventy patients aged 12-25 years with carious occlusal or proximal permanent vital posterior teeth were recruited. Tooth preparation was performed to receive an adhesive restoration. Pre- and post-excavation RDT were measured radiographically by two calibrated raters using the paralleling periapical technique. Prepometer™ measurements were performed by the operator. Patients rated their satisfaction level with each tool on a 4-point Likert scale and 100 mm visual analog scale (VAS). Inter and intragroup comparisons were analyzed using signed rank test, while agreement between devices and observations was tested using weight kappa (WK) coefficient. RESULTS: the intergroup comparisons showed that, before and after excavation, there was a significant difference between measurements made by both techniques (p < 0.001). After excavation, there was a weak agreement between measurements (WK = 0.2, p < 0.001), whereas before excavation, the agreement was not statistically significant (p = 0.407). Patients were significantly more satisfied with Prepometer™ based on scales and VAS (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Prepometer™ could be a viable clinical tool for determining RDT with high patient satisfaction, while radiographs tended to overestimate RDT in relation to the Prepometer™.