Influence of different working lengths on the shaping ability of Reciproc Blue in the apical third and apical foramen: a micro-computed tomographic study

Aim: This study aimed to assess the shaping ability of Reciproc Blue in the apical third and apical foramen of moderately curved canals at different working lengths (WLs), by micro-computed tomography. Methods: Thirty-six mesial roots (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals) were included, each with 2 separate root canals and independent apical foramina, according to type IV of Vertucci's classification of first and second mandibular molars. The canals were instrumented at three different WLs: G-1, 1mm short of the major apical foramen; G0, at the major apical foramen; G+1, 1mm beyond the major apical foramen. The groups were assessed for changes in root canal volume and untouched wall area in the apical third. Groups G0 and G+1 were also compared for percentage of untouched walls at the apical foramen. One-way ANOVA (post hoc Tukey test) and Student's t-test adopted a 5% level of significance. Results: Root canal volumes (mm3) in the apical third were 22.86±10.46, 44.48±24.91, and 55.71±21.32 in G-1, G0 and G+1, respectively. G-1 volume following instrumentation increased significantly less than that of G0 or G+1 (P>.05); G0 did not differ from G+1. The percentage of untouched wall area in the apical third did not differ among the three groups (P>.05). G0 and G+1 did not differ regarding untouched walls in the major apical foramem walls. Conclusion: Extending the WL from 1mm short of the apical foramen to a point at and beyond the WL increases the apical third volume without increasing the prepared area. Untouched surface areas of the apical foramen were not modified by instrumentation at or beyond the foramen

Intraoperative discomfort associated with the use of a rotary or reciprocating system: a prospective randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this randomized, controlled, prospective clinical study was to evaluate patients' intraoperative discomfort during root canal preparations in which either multi-file rotary (Mtwo) or single-file reciprocating (Reciproc) systems were used. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-five adult patients, aged between 25 and 69 years old, with irreversible pulpitis or pulp necrosis participated in this study. Either the mesiobuccal or the distobuccal canals for maxillary molars and either the mesiobuccal or the mesiolingual canals for mandibular molars were randomly chosen to be instrumented with Mtwo multi-file rotary or Reciproc single-file reciprocating systems. Immediately after each canal instrumentation under anesthesia, patient discomfort was assessed using a 1 - 10 visual analog scale (VAS), ranging from ‘least possible discomfort’ (1) to ‘greatest possible discomfort’ (10). The Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to determine significant differences at p< 0.05. RESULTS: Little intraoperative discomfort was found in all cases. No statistically significant differences in intraoperative discomfort between the 2 systems were found (p = 0.660). CONCLUSIONS: Root canal preparation with multi-file rotary or single-file reciprocating systems had similar and minimal effects on patients' intraoperative discomfort.