Oana Amza^1#, Georgiana Gheorghe^1#, Laura Iosif²*, Ana-Maria Țâncu²* and Bogdan Dimitriu¹

¹Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, "Carol Davila" University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania
²Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania

*Corresponding Author: Laura Iosif: laura.iosif@umfcd.ro Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania and Ana-Maria Țâncu: ana-maria.tancu@umfcd.ro Department of Prosthetic Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, “Carol Davila” University of Medicine and Pharmacy, Bucharest, Romania.

Received: November 04, 2024; Published: November 19, 2024

Abstract

One of the most common mishaps in endodontics is instrument separation, which has an important impact on the treatment outcome, preventing complete shaping, cleaning and filling of the root canals and leading to adverse effects on the prognosis of the involved teeth. Any endodontic instrument can fracture during its use, due to the intervention of some favorable and determining factors. As it is easier and more important to prevent instrument fractures than performing instrument retrieval, the understanding of the mechanisms through which they occur is of utmost importance for diminishing and ultimately avoiding the risks for such an undesirable event to take place.

 Keywords: Instrument Separation; Nickel-Titanium (NiTi),

References

1. Mamat R., et al. “The Complexity of the Root Canal Anatomy and Its Influence on Root Canal Debridement in the Apical Region: A Review”. Cureus 11 (2023): e49024.
2. Dioguardi M., et al. “Analysis of Endodontic Successes and Failures in the Removal of Fractured Endodontic Instruments during Retreatment: A Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Trial Sequential Analysis”. Healthcare 14 (2024): 1390.
3. Chugal N., et al. “Endodontic Treatment Outcomes”. Dental Clinics of North America1 (2017): 59-80.
4. American Association of Endodontists (AAE) Treatment Standards Whitepaper (2018): 12.
5. Lambrianidis T. “Management of fractured endodontic instruments. Springer International Publishing AG 7 (2018).
6. Chandak M., et al. “Demystifying Failures Behind Separated Instruments: A Review”. Cureus 9 (2022): e29588.
7. Alamoudi RA., et al. “Assessment of Incidence, Management and Contributory Factors of Root Canal Instrument Separation in an Endodontics Post- Graduate Program: A Retrospective Clinical Study”. Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice 27 (2024): 16-21.
8. Eskibağlar M., et al. “Investigation of fracture prevalence of instruments used in root canal treatments at a faculty of dentistry: a prospective study”. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics4 (2023): e38.
9. Zhu JN., et al. “Achieving superelasticity in additively manufactured Ni-lean NiTi by crystallographic design”. Materials and Design 230 (2023): 111949.
10. Coelho MS., et al. “Separation of Nickel-Titanium Rotary and Reciprocating Instruments: A Mini-Review of Clinical Studies”. Open Dental Journal 12 (2018): 864-872.
11. Nagendrababu V and Ahmed HMA. “Shaping properties and outcomes of nickel- titanium rotary and reciprocation systems using micro-computed tomography: a systematic review”. Quintessence International3 (2019): 186-195.
12. Saberi EA., et al. “Apical debris extrusion with conventional rotary and reciprocating instruments”. Iranian Endodontic Journal 15 (2020): 38-43.
13. Christofzik D., et al. “Shaping ability of four root canal instrumentation systems in simulated 3D-printed root canal models”. PloS One 13 (2018): e0201129.
14. Caballero-Flores H., et al. “Fracture incidence of instruments from a single-file reciprocating system by students in an endodontic graduate programme: a cross-sectional retrospective study”. International Endodontic Journal 52 (2019): 13-18.
15. Pruett JP., et al. “Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments”. Journal of Endodontics2 (1997): 77-85.
16. Hamid T., et al. “Comparative evaluation of cyclic fatigue resistance of thermomechanically treated NiTi rotary instruments in simulated curved canals with two different radii of curvature: An in vitro Study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 4 (2024): 393-399.
17. Chaniotis A., et al. “Phase transformation and mechanical properties of heat-treated nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments at room and body temperatures”. BMC Oral Health1 (2023): 825.
18. Pillay M., et al. “Fracture of endodontic instruments – Part 1: Literature review on factors that influence instrument breakage”. South African Dental Journal10 (2020).
19. Jamleh A., et al. “Endodontic instruments after torsional failure: Nanoindentation test”. Scanning 4 (2014): 437-443.
20. Bouska J., et al. “Resistance to Cyclic Fatigue Failure of a New Endodontic Rotary File”. Journal of Endodontics5 (2012): 667-669.
21. Zanza A., et al. “An Update on Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instruments in Endodontics: Mechanical Characteristics, Testing and Future Perspective-An Overview”. Bioengineering (Basel)12 (2021): 218.
22. Zupanc J., et al. “New thermomechanically treated NiTi alloys - a review”. International Endodontic Journal10 (2018): 1088-1103.
23. Algahtani F., et al. “Fatigue resistance of ProTaper gold exposed to high-concentration sodium hypochlorite in double curvature artificial canal”. Bio-active Materials 4 (2019): 245-248.
24. De-Deus G., et al. “Blue Thermomechanical Treatment Optimizes Fatigue Resistance and Flexibility of the Reciproc Files”. Journal of Endodontics3 (2017): 462-466.
25. Faus-Llácer V., et al. “The Effect of Taper and Apical Diameter on the Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Rotary Endodontic Files Using an Experimental Electronic Device”. Applied Sciences2 (2021): 863.
26. Khasnis SA., et al. “Rotary science and its impact on instrument separation: A focused review”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 2 (2018): 116-124.
27. Kwak SW., et al. “Torque Generation of the Endodontic Instruments: A Narrative Review”. Materials (Basel) 2 (2022): 664.
28. Kwak SW., et al. “Comparison of in vitro torque generation during instrumentation with adaptive versus continuous movement”. Journal of Endodontics 45 (2019): 803-807.
29. Dioguardi M., et al. “The Effects of Sterilization Procedures on the Cutting Efficiency of Endodontic Instruments: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis”. Materials (Basel)6 (2021): 1559.
30. El Abed R., et al. “Effect from Autoclave Sterilization and Usage on the Fracture Resistance of Heat-Treated Nickel–Titanium Rotary Files”. Materials6 (2023): 2261.
31. Orozco-Ocampo YM., et al. “Factors influencing NiTi endodontic file separation: A thematic review”. Dental and Medical Problems2 (2024): 269-278.
32. Smith MS. “Sodium hypochlorite’s effect on nickel-titanium rotary instruments and its effect on resistance to fracture. Master Thesis. Richmond: Virginia”. Commonwealth University (2007): 1-34.
33. Van Pham K and Vo CQ. “A new method for assessment of nickel-titanium endodontic instrument surface roughness using field emission scanning electronic microscope”. BMC Oral Health 20 (2020).
34. Hamdy TM., et al. “Impact of endodontic irrigants on surface roughness of various nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments”. BMC Oral Health1 (2023): 517.

Citation

Citation: Laura Iosif and Ana-Maria Țâncu., et al. “Causes of Endodontic Instrument Separation”.Acta Scientific Medical Sciences 8.12 (2024): 82-90.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2024 Laura Iosif and Ana-Maria Țâncu., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.