Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Prevalence of Procedural Errors in Maxillary Posterior Teeth

A range of procedural errors can occur when performing endodontic treatment on posterior teeth. These errors may decrease the success rate in endodontic practice. This study assessed the prevalence of procedural errors and the quality of endodontic treatments in maxillary molars and premolars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). CBCT scans from two private radiology centers were assessed retrospectively to ensure the same calculated sample size of 327 teeth for each of the four maxillary posterior tooth types (a total of 1,308 endodontically treated teeth). Image sets were evaluated for procedural errors categorized as follows: obturation length (overfilling or underfilling by >2 mm short of the root apex), missed canals, perforations, strip perforations (with extrusion of material into the furcation area), separated instruments in the root canal space, and root fracture. Data were analyzed with SPSS version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA), and frequency data was assessed using the Monte Carlo test at the 0.05 level of significance. The procedural errors most commonly reported in the present study were from most frequent to least frequent: underfilled canals (50.0%), missed canals (27.5%), overfilled canals (12.5%), apical perforations (5.0%), separated instruments (3.1%), and root fractures (1.9%). No strip perforations (with extrusion of material into the furcation area) were seen in the study (0%). Underfilled and missed root canals were the most frequent procedural errors identified in the present study. These findings underline the importance of more consideration of critical working length management during all stages of root canal treatment, greater awareness of root canal anatomy, and the use of imaging and diagnostic devices that enhance the ability to identify and treat root canals both safely and effectively.

Evaluating In Vitro Performance of a Novel Stainless Steel Rotary System (Gentlefile) Based on Debris Extrusion and Instrumentation Time

The new Gentlefile (GF) system, made of stainless steel and developed by MedicNRG in Kibbutz Afikim, Israel, claims to have advantages over traditional nickel-titanium files. However, research has shown that nickel-titanium files are mechanically superior due to their increased flexibility, cutting efficiency, and ability to maintain canal anatomy with less risk of procedural errors. This study compared the amount of debris extrusion and the time required for root canal instrumentation using GF versus the nickel-titanium ProTaper Universal (PTU) system and a manual step-back (MSB) stainless steel technique. This in vitro experimental study utilized 66 extracted human single-canal mandibular premolars with mature apices and root curvature of less than 10 degrees. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n = 22) and standardized for working length before being placed in preweighed vials. Group 1 was instrumented with PTU, Group 2 with GF, and Group 3 with the MSB technique. Extruded debris was collected in the vials, dried in an incubator, and weighed using the same scale. The change in weight indicates the debris amount. Instrumentation time was recorded using a stopwatch. The normal distribution of data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The groups were then compared regarding the amount of extruded debris and instrumentation time using the Kruskal-Wallis test and one-way ANOVA, followed by the Games-Howell test, respectively (alpha = 0.05). No significant difference in apical debris extrusion was found among the three groups (P > 0.05). However, a significant difference in instrumentation time was detected between the groups (P < 0.05). MSB instrumentation took significantly longer than both the PTU (P = 0.001) and GF (P = 0.001) systems. The GF system did not demonstrate reduced apical debris extrusion or faster instrumentation time compared to PTU. MSB had the longest instrumentation time compared to the other techniques.