Dentinal defects induced by 6 different endodontic files when used for oval root canals: an in vitro comparative study

OBJECTIVES: To compare the formation of dentinal defects using stainless-steel hand K-files (HFs), rotary files, reciprocating files, and Self-Adjusting File (SAF), when used for oval root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred and forty extracted human mandibular premolar with single root and oval canal were selected for this study. Oval canals were confirmed by exposing to mesio-distal and bucco-lingual radiographs. Teeth with open apices or anatomic irregularities were excluded. All selected teeth were de-coronated perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth, leaving roots segments approximately of 16 mm in length. Twenty teeth were left unprepared (control), and the remaining 120 teeth were divided into 6 groups (n = 20) and instrumented using HF (size 40/0.02), Revo-S (RS; size 40/0.06), ProTaper NEXT (PTN; size 40/0.06), WaveOne (WO; size 40/0.09), RECIPROC (RC; size 40/0.06), and the SAF (2 mm). Roots were then sectioned 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, and observed under stereomicroscope, for presence of dentinal defects. “No defect” was defined as root dentin that presented with no visible microcracks or fractures. “Defect” was defined by microcracks or fractures in the root dentin. RESULTS: The control, HF, and SAF did not exhibit any dentinal defects. In roots instrumented by RS, PTN, WO, and RC files exhibited microcracks (incomplete or complete) in 40%, 30%, 55%, and 50%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The motor-driven root canal instrumentation with rotary and reciprocating files may create microcracks in radicular dentine, whereas the stainless-steel hand file instrumentation, and the SAF produce minimal or less cracks.

Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of accessory maxillary ostium and Haller cells: Prevalence and clinical significance

PURPOSE: This study aimed to evaluate the prevalence of Haller cells and accessory maxillary ostium (AMO) in cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) images, and to analyze the relationships among Haller cells, AMO, and maxillary sinusitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Volumetric CBCT scans from 201 patients were retrieved from our institution's Digital Imaging and Communications in Medicine archive folder. Two observers evaluated the presence of Haller cells, AMO, and maxillary sinusitis in the CBCT scans. RESULTS: AMO was observed in 114 patients, of whom 27 (23.7%) had AMO exclusively on the right side, 26 (22.8%) only on the left side, and 61 (53.5%) bilaterally. Haller cells were identified in 73 (36.3%) patients. In 24 (32.9%) they were present exclusively on the right side, in 17 (23.3%) they were only present on the left side, and in 32 (43.8%) they were located bilaterally. Of the 73 (36.3%) patients with Haller cells, maxillary sinusitis was also present in 50 (68.5%). On using chi-square test, a significant association was observed between AMO and maxillary sinusitis in the presence of Haller cells. CONCLUSION: Our results showed AMO and Haller cells to be associated with maxillary sinusitis. This study provides evidence for the usefulness of CBCT in imaging the bony anatomy of the sinonasal complex with significantly higher precision and a smaller radiation dose.