Dr Rolly s.

Agarwal
Results

Evaluation of canal transportation

Evaluation of canal transportation

Formula :

(A1-A2) (B1- B2)

Where

A1-

Shortest distance from the mesial edge of the

curved root to the mesial edge of the uninstrumented
canal
B1 - shortest distance from distal (furcation) edge of the
curved root to the distal edge of the uninstrumented
canal
A2 - shortest distance from the mesial edge of the curved
root to the mesial edge of the instrumented canal
B2 - shortest distance from distal (furcation) edge of the
curved root to the distal edge of the instrumented
canal.

Degree of transportation :

Determined by calculating the

absolute values that resulted from
the above formula.

Direction of transportation:

Positive value
---transportation
lateral
to
the
curvature.

Negative
value
---transportation
in the direction
facing
the
furcation.
5

Evaluation of centering ability

Mean Centering Ratio:
(A1 - A2) / (B1 - B2)
Or

(B1 - B2) / A1 - A2)

A result of '1' indicates perfect centering.

If these numbers are not equal, the lower figure
is considered the numerator of the ratio.

Preparation Time

Time
of
shaping
included
instrumentation, irrigation, and
instrument cleaning.

Statistical Analysis
Data obtained were compared
using ANOVA one-way analysis of
variance and students t-test with
0.05 level of significance.

Results
One One-Shape file showed
macroscopic deformation after use.

3 mm

6 mm

9 mm
10

MEAN TRANSPORTATION (mm) OF THE

CANALS
3 mm
(meanSD)

6 mm
(meanSD)

9 mm
(meanSD)

Group I
(PT)

0.060.04

0.090.05

0.190.08

Group II
(OS)

0.050.03

0.070.04

0.120.07

Group III
(WO)

0.060.04

0.080.04

0.130.06

Group (n=20)

3 mm: On comparing the groups, it was found to be statistically

not significant
6 mm: On comparing the groups, it was found to be statistically
not significant
9 mm: Group I Vs. Group II Significant (p < 0.05)
Group I Vs. Group III - Significant (p < 0.05)
Group II Vs. Group III Not significant (p > 0.05)

MEAN CANAL TRANSPORTATION AT DIFFERENT LEVELS

0.19

0.2
0.18
0.16

0.13
0.12

0.14
0.12
Transportation (mm)

0.09

0.1
0.08
0.06

Group I
Group II
Group III

0.06 0.06
0.05

0.08
0.07

0.04
0.02
0

3 mm

6 mm

Distance from Apex

9 mm

TRANSPORTATION TENDENCIES OF GROUPS AT EACH LEVEL

0.04
0.02
0

0.03 0.03
0.02 0.02
0.01
0
3 mm

-0.14
-0.05
-0.01
6 mm

9 mm

-0.02
-0.04
Mean Transportation (mm)

-0.06
-0.08
-0.1
-0.12
-0.14
-0.16
Level from Apical Foramen (mm)

Group I
Group II
Group III

CENTERING RATIO
3 mm
(meanSD)

6 mm
(meanSD)

9 mm
(meanSD)

Group I
(PT)

0.630.20

0.570.21

0.470.16

Group II
(OS)

0.670.24

0.550.24

0.540.24

Group III
(WO)

0.640.23

0.570.24

0.550.18

Group (n=20)

No statistical significant difference was seen in the centering

ratio between the three instrumentation techniques (p > 0.05)

MEAN CENTERING RATIO IN ALL THE THREE GROUPS

0.7

0.67
0.63 0.64
0.57 0.57
0.55

0.6

0.55
0.54
0.47

0.5

Group I
Group II
Group III

0.4
Mean Value (mm)
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

3 mm

6 mm
Distance from Apex

9 mm

PREPARATION TIME
Group (n=20)

Preparation Time (sec)

(meanSD)

Group I

(PT)

106.00 11.09

Group II

(OS)

57.05 3.73

Group III

(WO)

60.15 4.98

Group I Vs. Group II Significant (p <

0.05)
Group I Vs. Group III - Significant (p <
0.05)
Group II Vs. Group III Not significant