Influence of cervical preflaring on apical file size determination

• Published in: International endodontic journal 2005-07, Vol.38 (7), p.430-435
• Main Authors: Pecora, J. D., Capelli, A., Guerisoli, D. M. Z., Spanó, J. C. E., Estrela, C.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Analysis of Variance; apical file size determination; coronal flaring; Dental Alloys; Dental Instruments; Dental Pulp Cavity - anatomy & histology; Dentistry; Humans; Incisor; instrument type; Maxilla; Nickel; Odontometry - methods; Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation; Root Canal Preparation - methods; Stainless Steel; Titanium; Tooth Apex - anatomy & histology; Tooth Cervix
• ISSN: 0143-2885; 1365-2591
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00946.x

Aim  To investigate the influence of cervical preflaring with different instruments (Gates‐Glidden drills, Quantec Flare series instruments and LA Axxess burs) on the first file that binds at working length (WL) in maxillary central incisors. Methodology  Forty human maxillary central incisors with complete root formation were used. After standard access cavities, a size 06 K‐file was inserted into each canal until the apical foramen was reached. The WL was set 1 mm short of the apical foramen. Group 1 received the initial apical instrument without previous preflaring of the cervical and middle thirds of the root canal. Group 2 had the cervical and middle portion of the root canals enlarged with Gates‐Glidden drills sizes 90, 110 and 130. Group 3 had the cervical and middle thirds of the root canals enlarged with nickel‐titanium Quantec Flare series instruments. Titanium‐nitrite treated, stainless steel LA Axxess burs were used for preflaring the cervical and middle portions of root canals from group 4. Each canal was sized using manual K‐files, starting with size 08 files with passive movements until the WL was reached. File sizes were increased until a binding sensation was felt at the WL, and the instrument size was recorded for each tooth. The apical region was then observed under a stereoscopic magnifier, images were recorded digitally and the differences between root canal and maximum file diameters were evaluated for each sample. Results  Significant differences were found between experimental groups regarding anatomical diameter at the WL and the first file to bind in the canal (P