Krajczár K, Varga E, Marada G, Jeges S, Tóth V. Comparison of working length control consistency between hand K-files and Mtwo NiTi rotary system. J Clin Exp Dent. 2016;8(2):e136-40.

 

doi:10.4317/jced.52561

http://dx.doi.org/doi:10.4317/jced.52561

 

References

1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974;18:269-96.
PMid:4522570

 

2. Sjögren U, Hagglund B, Sundqvist G, Wing K. Factors affecting the long-term results of endodontic treatment. J Endod. 1990;16:498-504.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(07)80180-4

PMid:2084204

 

3. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004;30:559-67.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.DON.0000129039.59003.9D
PMid:15273636

 

4. Schaeffer MA, White RR, Walton RE. Determining the optimal obturation length: a meta-analysis of literature. J Endod. 2005;31:271-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.don.0000140585.52178.78
PMid:15793382

 

5. Iqbal MK, Banfield B, Lavorini A, Bachstein B. A comparison of LightSpeed LS1 and LightSpeed LSX NiTi rotary instruments in apical transportation and length control in simulated root canals. J Endod. 2007;33:268-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2006.10.013
PMid:17320711

 

6. Ferraz CC, Gomes NV, Gomes BP, Zaia AA, Teixeira FB, Souza-Filho FJ. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine-driven instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J. 2001;34:354-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00394.x
PMid:11482718

 

7. Park H. A comparison of Greater Taper files, ProFiles, and stainless steel files to shape curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2001;91:715-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/moe.2001.114159
PMid:11402288

 

8. Piepenbring ME, Potter BJ, Weller RN, Loushine RJ. Measurement of endodontic file lengths: a density profile plot analysis. J Endod. 2000;26:615-8.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200010000-00009
PMid:11199805

 

9. Haïkel Y, Serfaty R, Bateman G, Senger B, Allemann C. Dynamic and cyclic fatigue of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1999;25:434-40.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80274-X

PMid:10530246

 

10. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003;36:288-95.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00650.x
PMid:12702124

 

11. Bishop K, Dummer PM. A comparison of stainless steel Flexofiles and nickel-titanium NITiFlex files during the shaping of simulated canals. Int Endod J. 1997;30:25-34.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb01095.x
PMid:9477791

 

12. Iqbal MK, Maggiore F, Suh B, Edwards KR, Kang J, Kim S. Comparison of apical transportation in four Ni-Ti rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 2003;29:587-91.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200309000-00011
PMid:14503833

 

13. Mandel E, Adib-Yazdi M, Benhamou LM, Lachkar T, Mesgouez C, Sobel M. Rotary Ni-Ti profile systems for preparing curved canals in resin blocks: influence of operator on instrument breakage. Int Endod J. 1999;32:436-43.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00239.x
PMid:10709491

 

14. Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator's proficiency on ProFile failures. Int Endod J. 2001;34:47-53.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00352.x
PMid:11307380

 

15. Torabinejad M. Passive step-back technique. A sequential use of ultrasonic and hand instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1994;77:402-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0030-4220(94)90204-6

PMid:8015806

 

16. Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1995;21:146-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80441-3

PMid:7561658

 

17. Tan BT, Messer HH. The quality of apical canal preparation using hand and rotary instruments with specific criteria for enlargement based on initial apical file size. J Endod. 2002;28:658-64.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200209000-00008
PMid:12236311

 

18. Liu SB, Fan B, Cheung GS, Peng B, Fan MW, Gutmann JL, et al. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability of rotary ProTaper compared with rotary GT and manual K-Flexofile. Am J Dent. 2006;19:353-8.
PMid:17212077

 

19. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino VA, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2004;37:832-9.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2004.00887.x
PMid:15548274

 

20. Veltri M, Mollo A, Mantovani L, Pini P, Balleri P, Grandini S. A comparative study of Endoflare–Hero Shaper and Mtwo NiTi instruments in the preparation of curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2005;38:610-6.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00989.x
PMid:16104974

 

21. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2006;39:196-202.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01074.x
PMid:16507073

 

22. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2006;39:203-12.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01075.x
PMid:16507074

 

23. Martín-Micó M, Forner-Navarro L, Almenar-García A. Modification of the working length after rotary instrumentation: a comparative study of four systems. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2009;14:E153-7.
PMid:19242397

 

24. Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int Endod J. 2000;33:248-54.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00287.x

PMid:11307443

 

25. Schäfer E, Lohmann D. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile -- Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2002;35:505-13.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00513.x
PMid:12190907

 

26. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J. 2005;38:743-52.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.01010.x
PMid:16164689

 

27. Matwychuk MJ, Bowles WR, McClanahan SB, Hodges JS, Pesun IJ. Shaping abilities of two different engine-driven rotary nickel titanium systems or stainless steel balanced-force technique in mandibular molars. J Endod. 2007;33:868-71.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2007.03.005
PMid:17804332

 

28. Karabucak B, Gatan AJ, Hsiao C, Iqbal MK. A comparison of apical transportation and length control between EndoSequence and Guidance rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010;36:123-5.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.09.015
PMid:20003949

 

29. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2004;37:229-38.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00786.x
PMid:15056349

 

30. Iqbal MK, Floratos S, Hsu YK, Karabucak B. An in vitro comparison of Profile GT and GTX nickel-titanium rotary instruments in apical transportation and length control in mandibular molar. J Endod. 2010;36:302-4.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2009.10.021
PMid:20113795