Possibility of Bypassing Three Fractured Rotary NiTi Files and Its Correlation with the Degree of Root Canal Curvature and Location of the Fractured File: An In Vitro Study
Iranian Endodontic Journal,
Vol. 17 No. 2 (2022),
Introduction: This study aimed to evaluate the success rate of bypassing three NiTi rotary files (RaCe®, Hero 642®, and K3®), fractured in various root canal locations of extracted mandibular molars with two different canal curvatures. Materials and Methods: Ninety freshly extracted human first or second mandibular molars were selected. Three millimeters of the file tip (RaCe®, Hero 642®, and K3®), was fractured intentionally in the mesiobuccal root canal of each tooth by weakening the file in the last 3 mm of files #30 with 4% taper and preparing the root canals with two different degrees of curvature (n=30). Then, bypass possibility of the fractured files was evaluated using #8, #10, and #15 K-files and compared in different groups. In addition, the rate of accidental procedural errors was compared between these groups. Data were analyzed with univariate analysis and logistic regression models at a significance level of 0.05. Results: The overall success rate of bypassing was 61.1%. RaCe® files had the highest and the K3® files had the lowest bypass possibility rates (P=0.01); the greater the degree of canal curvature, the less successful the bypass procedure (P=0.01). The fracture of the files used to bypass was the most prevalent error. Conclusion: Based on this in vitro study the type of fractured file and the amount of canal curvature affected the success rate of the bypassing technique. In RaCe® files and the mild curvature group, the success rate was the highest.
- Bypass; Fractured File; Root Canal Preparation; Root Canal Treatment; Rotary Instruments
How to Cite
2. Adl A, Shahravan A, Farshad M, Honar S. Success rate and time for bypassing the fractured segments of four NiTi rotary instruments. Iranian Endodontic Journal. 2017;12(3):349.
3. Mozayeni MA, Golshah A, Kerdar NN. A survey on NiTi rotary instruments usage by endodontists and general dentist in Tehran. Iranian endodontic journal. 2011;6(4):168.
4. Wolcott S, Wolcott J, Ishley D, Kennedy W, Johnson S, Minnich S, et al. Separation incidence of protaper rotary instruments: a large cohort clinical evaluation. Journal of endodontics. 2006;32(12):1139-41.
5. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes Jr DL. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. Journal of endodontics. 1997;23(2):77-85.
6. Patil TN, Saraf PA, Penukonda R, VANAkI SS, Kamatagi L. A survey on nickel titanium rotary instruments and their usage techniques by endodontists in India. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research: JCDR. 2017;11(5):ZC29.
7. Pruthi PJ, Nawal RR, Talwar S, Verma M. Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of ultrasonic tips versus the Terauchi file retrieval kit for the removal of separated endodontic instruments. Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics. 2020;45(2).
8. Souter NJ, Messer HH. Complications associated with fractured file removal using an ultrasonic technique. Journal of Endodontics. 2005;31(6):450-2.
9. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. Journal of endodontics. 2000;26(3):161-5.
10. Martin B, Zelada G, Varela P, Bahillo J, Magán F, Ahn S, et al. Factors influencing the fracture of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. International Endodontic Journal. 2003;36(4):262-6.
11. Pedir SS, Mahran AH, Beshr K, Baroudi K. Evaluation of the Factors and Treatment Options of Separated Endodontic Files among dentists and undergraduate students in Riyadh area. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2016;10(3):ZC18.
12. Suter B, Lussi A, Sequeira P. Probability of removing fractured instruments from root canals. International Endodontic Journal. 2005;38(2):112-23.
13. Thirumalai AK, Sekar M, Mylswamy S. Retrieval of a separated instrument using Masserann technique. Journal of conservative dentistry: JCD. 2008;11(1):42.
14. McGuigan M, Louca C, Duncan H. Clinical decision-making after endodontic instrument fracture. British dental journal. 2013;214(8):395-400.
15. Madarati AA, Qualtrough AJ, Watts DC. A microcomputed tomography scanning study of root canal space: changes after the ultrasonic removal of fractured files. Journal of Endodontics. 2009;35(1):125-8.
16. Madarati A, Qualtrough A, Watts D. Vertical fracture resistance of roots after ultrasonic removal of fractured instruments. International Endodontic Journal. 2010;43(5):424-9.
17. Al‐Fouzan K. Incidence of rotary ProFile instrument fracture and the potential for bypassing in vivo. International endodontic journal. 2003;36(12):864-7.
18. Shahabinejad H, Ghassemi A, Pishbin L, Shahravan A. Success of ultrasonic technique in removing fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals and its effect on the required force for root fracture. Journal of endodontics. 2013;39(6):824-8.
19. Torabinejad M, Walton R. Procedural Accidents. Endodontics Principles and Practices. 4th edition ed: Saunders Elsevier; 2008. p. 333.
20. Santos MDBd, Marceliano MF. Evaluation of apical deviation in root canals instrumented with K3 and ProTaper systems. Journal of Applied Oral Science. 2006;14(6):460-4.
21. Shen Y, Peng B, Cheung GS-p. Factors associated with the removal of fractured NiTi instruments from root canal systems. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology. 2004;98(5):605-10.
22. Nevares G, Cunha RS, Zuolo ML, da Silveira Bueno CE. Success rates for removing or bypassing fractured instruments: a prospective clinical study. Journal of endodontics. 2012;38(4):442-4.
23. Ward JR, Parashos P, Messer HH. Evaluation of an ultrasonic technique to remove fractured rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments from root canals: clinical cases. Journal of Endodontics. 2003;29(11):764-7.
24. Terauchi Y, O’Leary L, Kikuchi I, Asanagi M, Yoshioka T, Kobayashi C, et al. Evaluation of the efficiency of a new file removal system in comparison with two conventional systems. Journal of endodontics. 2007;33(5):585-8.
25. Zuolo ML, Walton RE. Instrument deterioration with usage: Nickel-titanium versus stainless steel. Quintessence International. 1997;28(6).
26. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral surgery, Oral medicine, Oral pathology. 1971;32(2):271-5.
27. Gencoglu N, Helvacioglu D. Comparison of the different techniques to remove fractured endodontic instruments from root canal systems. European journal of dentistry. 2009;3(2):90.
28. Terauchi Y, O’Leary L, Yoshioka T, Suda H. Comparison of the time required to create secondary fracture of separated file fragments by using ultrasonic vibration under various canal conditions. Journal of endodontics. 2013;39(10):1300-5.
29. Cujé J, Bargholz C, Hülsmann M. The outcome of retained instrument removal in a specialist practice. International endodontic journal. 2010;43(7):545-54.
- Abstract Viewed: 65 times
- PDF Downloaded: 57 times