The Effect of Gates-Glidden Drills on the Quality of Root Canal Treatment by Pre-Clinical Dental Students
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2018.463Keywords:
Dental Students, Root canal treatment, Gates-Glidden, Iatrogenic errors, Cone beam computed tomographyAbstract
AIM: This study was conducted to investigate the effect of applying Gates-Glidden (GG) drill by pre-clinical dental students on root canal treatment quality.
METHOD: A total of 56 first molars consisting of 168 canals were selected in this study. For this purpose, 56 students who had been formerly trained by two methods of root canal preparation were randomly divided into two groups (n = 28). Group 1: the step-down method by GG and Group 2: step-back technique without GG. The prepared teeth were filled with gutta-percha/ZOE sealer using lateral condensation. Periapical radiographs were taken before and the following treatment to survey occurrence of preparation errors and CBCT images to determine residual dentine at furcation region.
RESULTS: The findings showed that among 10 error types in specimens prepared by students, the occurrence of underfilling, overfilling, inappropriate, ledge formation, and single cone was more common without GG. There were no significant differences in residual dentine amount at furcation region between preparation with and without using GG (P > 0.05).
CONCLUSION: Using GG for root canal preparation by dental students resulted in low errors and not an increased dentine removal risk.
Downloads
Metrics
Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block
References
Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping the ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent. 2014; 17(1):35-9. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.124127 PMid:24554858 PMCid:PMC3915383
Leonardi DP, Haragushiku GA, Tomazinho FS, Furuse AY, Volpato L, Baratto-Filho F. Undergraduate students introduction to manual and rotary root canal instrumentation. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll. 2012; 53(3):155-9. https://doi.org/10.2209/tdcpublication.53.155 PMid:23124306
Adebayo ET, Ahaji LE, Nnachetta RN, Nwankwo O, Akabogu-Okpeseyi N, Yaya MO, et al. the Technical quality of root canal fillings done in a Nigerian general dental clinic. BMC Oral Health. 2012; 12:42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6831-12-42 PMid:23066650 PMCid:PMC3504551
Schmitz Mda S, Santos R, Capelli A, Jacobovitz M, Spanó JC, Pécora JD. Influence of cervical preflaring on determination of apical file size in mandibular molars: SEM analysis. Braz Dent J. 2008; 19(3):245-51. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402008000300013 PMid:18949299
de Alencar AH, Dummer PM, Oliveira HC, Pécora JD, Estrela C. Procedural errors during root canal preparation using rotary NiTi instruments detected by periapical radiography and cone beam computed tomography. Braz Dent J. 2010; 21(6):543-9. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-64402010000600011 PMid:21271046
Coutinho-Filho T, De-Deus G, Gurgel-Filho ED, Rocha-Lima AC, Dias KR, Barbosa CA. Evaluation of the risk of a stripping perforation with Gates-Glidden drills: serial versus crown-down sequences. Braz Oral Res. 2008; 22(1):18-24. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000100004 PMid:18425240
Al Jabbari YS, Fournelle R, Al Taweel SM, Zinelis S. Failure analysis of eleven Gates Glidden drills that fractured intraorally during post space preparation. A retrieval analysis study. Biomedical Engineering. 2018; 63(4):407-12. https://doi.org/10.1515/bmt-2016-0245 PMid:28723609
Dillon JS, Amita BG. To determine whether the first file to bind at the working length corresponds to the apical diameter in roots with apical curvatures both before and after preparing. J Conserv Dent. 2012; 15(4):363-366. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.101908 PMid:23112485 PMCid:PMC3482751
Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. The risk of furcal perforation in mandibular molars using Gates-Glidden drills with anticurvature pressure. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2005; 99(3):378-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2004.07.008 PMid:15716849
Flores CB, Montagner F, Gomes BP, Dotto GN, da Silva Schmitz M. Comparative Assessment of the Effects of Gates-Glidden, Largo, LA-Axxess, and New Brazilian Drill CPdrill on Coronal Pre-enlargement: Cone-beam Computed Tomographic Analysis. J Endod. 2014; 40(4):571-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.08.028 PMid:24666914
Zuckerman O, Katz A, Pilo R, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Residual dentin thickness in mesial roots of mandibular molars prepared with Lightspeed rotary instruments and Gates-Glidden reamers. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003; 96(3):351-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1079-2104(02)91710-5
Fong JY, Tan VJ, Lee JR, Tong ZG, Foong YK, Tan JM, et al. Clinical audit training improves undergraduates' performance in root canal therapy. Eur J Dent Educ. 2018; 22(3):160-6. https://doi.org/10.1111/eje.12297 PMid:29266663
Saatchi M, Mohammadi G, Sichani AV, Moshkforoush S. Technical Quality of Root Canal Treatment Performed by Undergraduate Clinical Students of Isfahan Dental School. Iran Endod J. 2018; 13(1):88-93. PMid:29692842 PMCid:PMC5800448
Ribeiro DM, Reus JC, Felippe WT, Pachêcoâ€Pereira C, Dutra KL, Santos JN, et al. Technical quality of root canal treatment performed by undergraduate students using hand instrumentation: a metaâ€analysis. Int Endontic J. 2018; 51(3):269-83. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.12853 PMid:28862763
Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparation in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1971; 32:271-5. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1
Hulsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics. 2005; 10(1):30-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x
Barbieri N, Leonardi DP, Baechtold MS, Correr GM, Gabardo MC, Zielak JC, Baratto-Filho F. Influence of cervical preflaring on apical transportation in curved root canals instrumented by reciprocating file systems. BMC oral health. 2015; 15(1):149. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-015-0137-0 PMid:26593244 PMCid:PMC4656179
Sousa K, Andrade-Junior CV, Silva JM, Duarte MA, De-Deus G, Silva EJ. Comparison of the effects of TripleGates and Gates-Glidden burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal area by using cone beam computed tomography. J Appl Oral Sci. 2015; 23(2):164-8. https://doi.org/10.1590/1678-775720130542 PMid:26018308 PMCid:PMC4428461
Mollashahi NF, Sohrabi M, Mollashahi LF, Mehdizadeh M. The Efficacy of FlexMaster'sIntroFile, PreRaCe and Gates Glidden Drills in Straight-Line Access: A CBCT Assessment. Iran Endod J. 2014; 9(3):199-203.
Kfir A, Rosenberg E, Zuckerman O, Tamse A, Fuss Z. Comparison of procedural errors resulting during root canal preparations completed by junior dental students in patients using an '8-step method' versus 'serial step-back technique. Int Endod J. 2003; 36(1):49-53. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00612.x PMid:12656514
Yin X, Cheung GS, Zhang C, Masuda YM, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K. Micro-computed tomographic comparison of nickel-titanium rotary versus traditional instruments in C-shaped root canal system. J Endod. 2010; 36(4):708-12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2010.01.003 PMid:20307748
Akhlaghi NM, Naghdi A, Bajgiran LM, Behrooz E. Computed tomography evaluation of residual root thickness after pre-flaring using gates Glidden drills: The sequence effect. Journal of conservative dentistry. J Conserv Dent. 2014; 17(2):142-145. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-0707.128052 PMid:24778510 PMCid:PMC4001270
Coutinho-Filho T, De-Deus G, Gurgel-Filho ED, Rocha-Lima AC, Dias KR, Barbosa CA. Evaluation of the risk of a stripping perforation with Gates-Glidden drills: serial versus crown-down sequences. Braz Oral Res. 2008; 22(1):18-24. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1806-83242008000100004 PMid:18425240
Pinto SL, Marceliano-alves MF, Lins RX, Radetic EA, Lopes HP. The dentin thickness remaining in the risk zone of mandibular molars after cervical preflaring with four methods. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2017; 46(1):1-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.07016
Mahran AH, Aboel-Fotouh MM. Comparison of effects of ProTaper, HeroShaper, and Gates Glidden Burs on cervical dentin thickness and root canal volume by using multislice computed tomography. J Endod. 2008; 34(10):1219-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2008.06.022 PMid:18793924
Akhlaghi NM, Kahali R, Abtahi A, Tabatabaee S, Mehrvarzfar P, Parirokh M. Comparison of dentine removal using V-taper and K-Flexofile instruments. Int Endod J. 2010; 43(11):1029-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01769.x PMid:20636352
Ghoddusi J, Bagherpour A, Mahmudabadi F, Forghani M, Sarmad M. Residual dentin thickness of bifurcated maxillary premolars following two post space preparation methods. Iran Endod J. 2013; 8(3):94-8. PMid:23922568 PMCid:PMC3734522
Garala M, Kuttler S, Hardigan P, Steiner-Carmi R, Dorn S. A comparison of the minimum canal wall thickness remaining following preparation using two nickel-titanium rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2003; 36(9):636-42. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00704.x PMid:12950579
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2018 Roohollah Sharifi, Amin Torabi, Reza Hatam, Nafiseh Nikkerdar, Hamid Reza Mozaffari, Mohsen Safaei, Seyed Mojtaba Amiri
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0
