J Dent Res Dent Clin Dent Prospects. 2019;13(3): 215-220.
doi: 10.15171/joddd.2019.033
PMID: 31857868
PMCID: PMC6904921
  Abstract View: 177
  PDF Download: 232
  Full Text View: 41

Original Article

Fracture resistance of roots enlarged with various rotary systems and obturated with different sealers

Selen İnce Yusufoglu 1 * ORCID logo, Melek Akman 2, Makbule Bilge Akbulut 2, Ayce Ünverdi Eldeniz 3

1 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University, Ankara, Turky
2 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Konya Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Turkey
3 Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey
*Corresponding Author; E-mail: dtselenince@hotmail.com


Background. This in vitro study compared the fracture resistance of roots instrumented either with ProTaper or One Shape rotary systems and filled with one of the silicate, epoxy resin or silicone-based sealers.

Methods. Sixty single-rooted extracted mandibular premolars were decoronated to a length of 13 mm and then randomly divided into two main groups (n=30) in terms of the rotary system used for preparation. Group 1 samples were instrumented with the ProTaper Universal system up to a master apical file of #F2, while samples in group 2 were enlarged with One Shape system. The two main groups were then divided into 3 subgroups in terms of the sealer used (n=10) and filled with guttapercha (either F2 or MM-GP points) of the rotary system used and one of the sealers as follows: group 1, BioRoot RCS + ProTaper F2 gutta-percha; group 2, AH Plus + ProTaper F2 gutta-percha; group 3, GuttaFlow + ProTaper F2 gutta-percha; group 4, BioRoot RCS+ MM-GP points; group 5, AH Plus + MM-GP points; and group 6, GuttaFlow + MM-GP points. Each specimen then underwent fracture testing by using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1.0 mm/min until the root fractured. Data were statistically analyzed.

Results. Two-way ANOVA showed no significant differences between the groups. One Shape instruments showed significantly better fracture resistance compared to ProTaper instruments. Statistically, no significant difference was found between AHPlus, GuttaFlow and BioRoot RCS sealers.

Conclusion. It can be concluded that the rotary system used for the instrumentation of teeth has some influence on the fracture resistance, while the root canal sealers do not have such an effect.

Keywords: BioRoot RCS, Fracture resistance, GuttaFlow, One Shape
First Name
Last Name
Email Address
Security code

Abstract View: 177

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

PDF Download: 232

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Full Text View: 41

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 01 Jul 2019
Accepted: 28 Oct 2019
ePublished: 05 Dec 2019
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)