The impact of minimally invasive root canal preparation strategies on the ability to shape root canals of mandibular molars.

AIM

To evaluate the use of a reduced taper endodontic instrument system (Bassi Logic™ .03 taper) and expandable heat-treated system (XP-endo Shaper) on the ability to shape canals in mandibular molars, by means of microcomputed tomography (micro-CT) analysis. The Reciproc system was used as the reference for comparison.

METHODOLOGY

Twenty-four mandibular molars were scanned in a micro-CT, matched based on similar anatomical features and sorted into three groups (n = 8 per group), according to root canal preparation system: Bassi Logic™ .03, XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc. The teeth were mounted onto a mannequin and the pulp chambers were accessed with traditional access cavities. In Bassi Logic™ .03 and Reciproc groups, mesial canals were prepared with size 25, .03 taper or R25 (size 25, .08v taper) instruments and the distal root canal with size 25, .03 taper and size 40, .03 taper or R25 and R40 (size 40, .06v taper), respectively. In XP-endo Shaper groups, all root canals were prepared with XP-endo Shaper (size 30, .04v taper). After root canal preparation, the teeth were rescanned. The percentage of untouched canal areas and the percentage of removed dentine were evaluated separately for mesial and distal root canals. The data were analysed using one-way anova and Tukey tests (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

The Bassi Logic™ .03 group was associated with a greater percentage of untouched canal areas when compared to XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc groups for mesial and distal root canals (P < 0.05), but no differences were found between XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc groups (P > 0.05). No significant difference was observed in the percentage of dentine removed amongst the groups for mesial and distal root canals (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The use of a reduced taper system (Bassi Logic™ .03) during root canal preparation resulted in a greater percentage of untouched canal areas when compared to XP-endo Shaper and Reciproc instruments. No differences were observed amongst the systems regarding the percentage of dentine removed.