Akademik Veri Yönetim Sistemi
Journal of Endodontics, cilt.40, sa.10, ss.1681-1683, 2014 (SCI-Expanded)
© 2014 American Association of Endodontists.Methods One-hundred eight mandibular molars were selected. Eighteen teeth were left unprepared to serve as negative controls; the experimental groups consisted of the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual root canals of the remaining 90 teeth, which were instrumented with the following coronal flaring instruments: Gates Glidden drills and ProTaper Universal SX, Endoflare, Revo-S SC1, and HyFlex 25.08 instruments. All roots were then sectioned perpendicular to the long axis at 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 8 mm from the cementoenamel junction. The sections were inspected under a stereomicroscope, and any crack formations were recorded. The data were analyzed using the chi-square test (P =.05).Introduction The aim of the present study was to evaluate crack formation after flaring root canals with Gates Glidden drills and ProTaper Universal (SX; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Endoflare (MicroMega, Besançon, France), Revo-S (MicroMega), and HyFlex (Coltene-Whaledent, Allstetten, Switzerland) flaring instruments.Results The Gates Glidden drills resulted in a higher rate of crack formation than that noted in the control group (P <.05). Flaring of the root canals using the ProTaper Universal, Endoflare, Revo-S, and HyFlex instruments resulted in crack formation similar to that of the control group (P >.05).Conclusions The use of the Gates Glidden drills resulted in the formation of the most cracks. However, the results for the ProTaper Universal, Endoflare, Revo-S, and HyFlex flaring instruments were similar to those of the control group in terms of crack formation.