Background/Aim: To investigate the incidence of procedural errors with the use of a novel nickel-titanium rotary system (Hyflex CM, Coltene/Whaledent, Altstätten Switzerland), evaluate the technical quality of root canal treatments and assess a questionnaire completed by the participants themselves in an undergraduate dental clinic between 2014 and 2017 (Department of Endodontology, School of Dentistry, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki).
Material and Methods: 118 undergraduate students in their first year of clinical practice performed a root canal treatment on a patient’s molar (maxillary/mandibular). None of the participants had previous experience in rotary instrumentation. The periapical radiographs were taken with the use of the paralleling technique for standardization and were collected and evaluated by the investigator. After the root canal treatment was performed the students completed a questionnaire in order to evaluate their training on rotary instrumentation.
Results: The overall incidence of instrument separation, apical perforation, root perforation, straightening and ledges was 0.8%, 4.4%, 2.3%, 5.5% and 29% respectively on root canal level. Ledges were detected more often in mandibular mesiobuccal canals. The frequency of root canals with an ‘acceptable’ filling was 68.4%, while overfilled and underfilled canals were found to be 8.6% and 16.2% respectively. The response rate was high (94.9%), 35% of the participants encountered no difficulty in the use of rotary instrumentation and 98.2% would use it again.
Conclusions: The incidence of procedural errors was considerably low and the technical quality of the filled root canals was superior to that of similar studies. The responses of the questionnaire demonstrated a positive attitude toward rotary instrumentation.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Vaudt J, Bitter K, Neumann K, Kielbassa AM. Ex vivo study on root canal instrumentation of two rotary nickel-titanium systems in comparison to stainless steel hand instruments. Int Endod J, 2009;42:22–33.
2. Taşdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, Unal O. Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J, 2005;38:402–408.
3. Parashos P, Messer HH. Rotary NiTi instrument fracture and its consequences. J Endod, 2006;32:1031–1043.
4. Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y, Haapasalo M. Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod, 2011;37:997–1001.
5. Zinelis S, Eliades T, Eliades G. A metallurgical characterization of ten endodontic Ni-Ti instruments: assessing the clinical relevance of shape memory and superelastic properties of Ni-Ti endodontic instruments. Int Endod J, 2010;43:125–134.
6. Peters OA, Gluskin AK, Weiss RA, Han JT. An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of novel Hyflex nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J, 2012;45:1027–1034.
7. Plotino G, Testarelli L, Al-Sudani D, Pongione G, Grande NM, Gambarini G. Fatigue resistance of rotary instruments manufactured using different nickel-titanium alloys: a comparative study. Odontology, 2014;102:31–35.
8. Alfoqom Alazemi M, Bryant ST, Dummer PMH. Deformation of HyFlex CM instruments and their shape recovery following heat sterilization. Int Endod J, 2015;48: 593–601.
9. Shen Y, Coil JM, Haapasalo M. Defects in nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. Part 3: a 4-Year retrospective study from an undergraduate clinic. J Endod, 2009; 35:193–196.
10. Iqbal MK, Kohli MR, Kim JS. A retrospective clinical study of incidence of root canal instrument separation in an endodontics graduate program: a PennEndo database study. J Endod, 2006;32:1048–1052.
11. Arbab-Chirani R, Vulcain JM. Undergraduate teaching and clinical use of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments: a survey of French dental schools. Int Endod J, 2004;37:320–324.
12. Greene KJ, Krell KV. Clinical factors associated with ledged canals in maxillary and mandibular molars. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 1990;70: 490–497.
13. Balto H, Al Khalifah S, Al Mugairin S, Al Deeb M, Al-Madi E. Technical quality of root fillings performed by undergraduate students in Saudi Arabia. Int Endod J, 2010;43:292–300.
14. Khabbaz MG, Protogerou E, Douka E. Radiographic quality of root fillings performed by undergraduate students. Int Endod J, 2010;43:499–508.
15. Bürklein S, Börjes L, Schäfer E. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with Hyflex CM and Revo-S rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J, 2014;47:470–476.
16. Eleftheriadis GI, Lambrianidis TP. Technical quality of root canal treatment and detection of iatrogenic errors in an undergraduate dental clinic. Int Endod J, 2005;38: 725–734.
17. Crump MC, Natkin E. Relationship of broken root canal instruments to endodontic case prognosis: a clinical investigation. J Am Dent Assoc, 1970;80:1341–1347.
18. Ungerechts C, Bårdsen A, Fristad I. Instrument fracture in root canals -where, why, when and what ? A study from a student clinic. Int Endod J, 2014;47:183–190.
19. Tzanetakis GN, Kontakiotis EG, Maurikou DV, Marzelou MP. Prevalence and management of instrument fracture in the postgraduate endodontic program at the Dental School of Athens: a five-year retrospective clinical study. J Endod, 2008;34: 675–678.
20. Spili P, Parashos P, Messer HH. The impact of instrument fracture on outcome of endodontic treatment. J Endod, 2005;31:845–850.
21. Lee JK, Ha BH, Choi JH, Heo SM, Perinpanayagam H. Quantitative three-dimensional analysis of root canal curvature in maxillary first molars using micro-computed tomography. J Endod, 2006;32:941–945.
22. Kartal N, Cimilli HK. The degrees and configurations of mesial canal curvatures of mandibular first molars. J Endod, 1997;23:358-362.
23. Kapalas A, Lambrianidis T. Factors associated with root canal ledging during instrumentation. Endod Dent Traumatol, 2000;16:229–231.
24. Kfir A, Rosenberg E, Zuckerman O, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Comparison of procedural errors resulting during root canal preparations completed by senior dental students in patients using an ‘8-step method’ versus ‘serial step-back technique’. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 2004;97:745–748.
25. Thomson SA, Dummer PMH. Shaping ability of Profile.04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals.Part 1. Int Endod J, 1997;30:1–7.
26. Schäfer E, Schulz-Bongert U, Tulus G. Comparison of hand stainless steel and nickel titanium rotary instrumentation: a clinical study. J Endod, 2004;30:432–435.
27. Saber SEDM, Nagy MM, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J, 2015;48:131–136.
28. Barrieshi-Nusair KM, Al-Omari MA, Al-Hiyasat AS. Radiographic technical quality of root canal treatment performed by dental students at the Dental Teaching Center in Jordan. J Dent, 2004;32:301–307.
29. Hayes SJ, Gibson M, Hammond M, Bryant ST, Dummer PMH. An audit of root canal treatment performed by undergraduate students. Int Endod J, 2001;34:501–505.
30. Er O, Sagsen B, Maden M, Cinar S, Kahraman Y. Radiographic technical quality of root fillings performed by dental students in Turkey. Int Endod J, 2006;39:867–872.
31. Locker D. Response and nonresponse bias in oral health surveys. J Public Health Dent, 2000;60:72–81.