الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 131 |  |  |
| | | from | 131 | | |
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the cleaning and shaping
ability of the ProTaper and SafeSider systems in terms of
remaining of dentin thickness at different root canal levels, root
canal volume, and cleanliness of canal walls.
The remaining of dentin thickness for mesial and distal side were
assessed through comparing pre and post-instrumentation CT
scan at different root canal levels (coronal, middle, and apical
thirds) by using image analysis software (Syngo CT software
VB10B Siemens)
The root canal volume was evaluated using CT scan and canal
cleanliness was evaluated using the stereomicroscope.
A total of thirty extracted human permanent mandibular molars
were used in this study. Access cavities were established, the
tooth length and the canal curvature of the mesiobuccal root canal
were measured using direct digital radiography. Samples were
divided into two groups equally; for preparation using ProTaper
system and SafeSider system.
Evaluation of the remaining dentin thickness
Pre instrumentation standardized CT scan was analyzed at
different root canal levels (coronal, middle, and apical) for mesial
and distal side and dentin thickness was measured.
Instrumentation was done according to manufacturer’s instruction
for both systems. After instrumentation, standardized CT scan
was also analyzed for measurement of remaining dentin thickness
after instrumentation. Data were collected and the change in RDT
was calculated, then statistical analysis was performed using
INSTAT software.106
Concerning the canal volume, statistical analysis showed that
there was no statistically significant difference between the two
systems.
As Regard for canal cleanliness, statistical analysis showed that
there was a statistically significant difference in percentage of
debris between the two systems at all the three studied levels
(coronal, middle, and apical) for both MB and ML canals.
Also for ProTaper group there was a statistically significant
difference between the three studied levels (coronal, middle, and
apical). While for SafeSider group there was no statistically
significant difference between the three studied levels.
Conclusions
Within the limitations of this study the following conclusions can
be withdrawn:
1- Instrument design was more influential than its operating
mode on the preparation outcomes in terms of both shaping &
cleaning capabilities.
2- There was weak correlation apparent between volume &
removal of dentin with the two systems.
3- There was a significant difference in removal of dentin between
the two systems with less ProTaper values.
4- Apical third has the more debris percentage with the two
systems.
5- ProTaper system produced cleaner walls than SafeSiders
enlarging instruments.
1-Further studies can be employed for evaluation of the effect of
the preparation on apical extrusion of debris.
2-Evaluation of reciprocating systems having other design is
recommended for further investigation.