A Comparative Study of Shaping Ability of four Rotary Systems.
OBJECTIVE
This study compared the cutting area, instrumentation time, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas obtained by F360(®), Mtwo(®), RaCe(®) and Hyflex(®) files with ISO size 35.


METHODS
120 teeth with a single straight root and root canal were divided into 4 groups. Working length was calculated by using X-rays. The teeth were sectioned with a handpiece and a diamond disc, and the sections were observed with Nikon SMZ-2T stereoscopic microscope and an Intralux 4000-1 light source. The groups were adjusted with a preoperative analysis with AutoCAD. The teeth were reconstructed by a #10 K-File and epoxy glue. Each group was instrumented with one of the four file systems. The instrumentation time was calculated with a 1/100 second chronometer. The area of the thirds and root canal anatomy preservation were analyzed with AutoCAD 2013 and the non-instrumented areas with AutoCAD 2013 and SMZ-2T stereoscopic microscope. The statistical analysis was made with Levene's Test, ANOVA, Bonferroni Test and Pearson´s Chi-square.


RESULTS
Equal variances were shown by Levene's Test (P > 0.05). ANOVA (P > 0.05) showed the absence of significant differences. There were significant differences in the instrumentation time (P < 0.05). For root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas, there were no significant differences between all systems (P > 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
The 4 different rotary systems produced similar cutting area, root canal anatomy preservation and non-instrumented areas. Regarding instrumentation time, F360(®) was the fastest system statistically.
Department of Endodontics Catholic University of Valencia, Spain.
Jorge
J
Rubio
Department of Endodontics Catholic University of Valencia, Spain.
José Ignacio
JI
Zarzosa
Department of Endodontics Catholic University of Valencia, Spain.
Antonio
A
Pallarés
Cutting ability; cross-sections; instrumentation time; rotary instruments
J Endod. 2011 Oct;37(10 ):1412-6
21924193
Contemp Clin Dent. 2014 Apr;5(2):203-8
24963247
J Endod. 2010 Apr;36(4):703-7
20307747
J Endod. 2011 Aug;37(8):1143-6
21763910
J Endod. 2012 Jul;38(7):993-5
22703668
Int Endod J. 2015 Jan;48(1):109-14
24673737
Int Endod J. 2013 Jun;46(6):590-7
23240965
J Oral Sci. 2012 Mar;54(1):99-104
22466893
Iran Endod J. 2013 Spring;8(2):55-8
23717330
J Endod. 2014 Jun;40(6):852-6
24862716
J Endod. 2014 Jul;40(7):973-6
24935546
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2007 Jan;103(1):120-6
17178505
Int Endod J. 2015 Dec;48(12):1129-36
25400256
J Endod. 2013 Mar;39(3):385-8
23402512
Int Endod J. 2014 Dec;47(12 ):1177-84
24527697
J Endod. 2014 Mar;40(3):446-50
24565669
J Endod. 2011 Jun;37(6):847-50
21787503
J Endod. 2012 Apr;38(4):541-4
22414846
Int Endod J. 2014 Oct;47(10):974-9
24387043
Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011 May 01;16(3):e454-8
20711134
Restor Dent Endod. 2012 Nov;37(4):220-7
23430033
Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):180-4
25031590
J Conserv Dent. 2014 Mar;17(2):129-32
24778507
J Endod. 2013 Dec;39(12):1615-9
24238459
Int Endod J. 2014 May;47(5):470-6
23998461
J Endod. 2012 Apr;38(4):505-9
22414838
Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):449-61
22188401
J Endod. 2005 Nov;31(11):796-8
16249721