International Journal of Clinical Dentistry and Research

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 1 , ISSUE 1 ( January-March, 2017 ) > List of Articles


An in vitro comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Roots Instrumentated with Self-adjusting File and Reciproc Reciprocating File, with and without Obturation

Pooja Kabra

Citation Information : Kabra P. An in vitro comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Roots Instrumentated with Self-adjusting File and Reciproc Reciprocating File, with and without Obturation. Int J Clin Dent Res 2017; 1 (1):20-25.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10060-0005

License: CC BY 3.0

Published Online: 01-06-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; The Author(s).



The purpose of this study was to evaluate the fracture strength of roots instrumented with the self-adjusting file (SAF; ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel) and the Reciproc reciprocating file and that were and were not obturated using the warm vertical lateral compaction technique.

Materials and methods

In total, 75 mandibular premolar teeth were sectioned at or below the cementoenamel junction to obtain roots 13 mm in length. The roots were balanced with respect to buccolingual and mesiodistal diameters and weight. They were distributed into four experimental groups and one control group (n = 15): No instrumentation (group I), instrumentation with SAF files but no obturation (group II), instrumentation with SAF files and obturated with warm vertical lateral compaction (group III), instrumentation with Reciproc File but no obturation (group IV), and instrumentation with Reciproc File and obturated with warm vertical lateral compaction (group V). AH Plus sealer (Dentsply DeTrey, Konstanz, Germany) was used along with gutta-percha points. One week later, a vertical load was applied to the specimen's canal until fracture occurred. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (p = 0.05).


The mean fracture load was 312.83 N for group I, 297.35 N for group II, 359.15 N for group III, 231.51 N for group IV, and 275.81 N for group V.


The fracture resistances exhibited a statistically significant difference between all the groups. Teeth instrumented by SAF exhibited a better fracture resistance.

How to cite this article

Tyagi S, Choudhary E, Kabra P, Chauhan R. An in vitro comparative Evaluation of Fracture Strength of Roots Instrumentated with Self-adjusting File and Reciproc Reciprocating File, with and without Obturation. Int J Clin Dent Res 2017;1(1):20-25.

  1. Prevalence of vertical root fractures in extracted endodontically treated teeth. Int Endod J 1999 Aug;32(4):283-286.
  2. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 1: Respecting the root canal anatomy – a new concept of endodontic files and its implementation. J Endod 2010 Apr;36(4):679-690.
  3. An in vitro study to determine fracture resistance of tooth roots after different instrumentation techniques. J Dr NTR Univ Health Sci 2016 Jul;5(3):192-199.
  4. Influence of hands stainless steel and –Ni-Ti rotary file on the resistance to fracture of endodontic treated roots. Int J Recent Sci Res 2014 Mar;5(3):660-664.
  5. The K3 rotary Nickel titanium instrument system. Endod Topics 2005 Mar;10(1):179-182.
  6. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005 Oct;38(10):743-752.
  7. K3 Endo, ProTaper, and ProFile systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod 2004 Apr;30(4):234-237.
  8. 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 Jun;91(6):715-718.
  9. Comparison of single cone obturation performance of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems. Acta Odontol Scand 2014 Oct;72(7):537-542.
  10. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod 2009 Feb;35(2):236-238.
  11. The effect of two different root canal sealers and smear layer on resistance to root fracture. J Endod 2002 Aug;28(8):606-609.
  12. A comparison of the effects of two canal preparation techniques on root fracture susceptibility and fracture pattern. J Endod 2005 Apr;31(4):283-287.
  13. Resistance to fracture of endodontically treated roots. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992 Jan;73(1):99-102.
  14. Influence of instrument taper on the resistance to fracture of endodontically treated roots. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006 Jan;101(1):126-131.
  15. Evaluation of root reinforcement of endodontically treated teeth. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2000 Sep;90(3):360-364.
  16. Effects of physical and morphological properties of roots on fracture resistance. Eur J Dent 2014 Apr-Jun;8(2):261-264.
  17. Comparison of mandibular premolars and canines with respect to their resistance to vertical root fracture. J Dent 2004 May;32(4):265-268.
  18. Potential relationship between design of nickel-titanium rotary instruments and vertical root fracture. J Endod 2010 Jul;36(7):1195-1199.
  19. The effect of endodontic procedures on apical crack initiation and propagation ex vivo. Int Endod J 2013 Aug;46(8):763-768.
  20. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod 2013 Apr;39(4):501-504.
  21. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012 May;45(5):449-461.
  22. The self-adjusting file (SAF) system: an evidence-based update. J Conserv Dent 2014 Sep;17(5):401-419.
  23. Meant to make a difference, the clinical experience of minimally invasive endodontics with the self-adjusting file system in India. Indian J Dent Res 2014 Jul-Aug;25(4):509-512.
  24. Dentinal microcrack formation during root canal preparations by different NiTi rotary instruments and the self-adjusting file. J Endod 2012 Feb;38(2):232-235.
  25. Effects of self-adjusting file, Mtwo, and ProTaper on the root canal wall. J Endod 2013 Feb;39(2):262-264.
  26. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013 Aug;39(8):1054-1056.
  27. Fracture resistance of teeth instrumented by the Self-Adjusting File, ProTaper NEXT and WaveOne. J Pierre Fauchard Acad 2014 Sep;28(3):83-87.
  28. Stress generation during self-adjusting file movement: minimally invasive instrumentation. J Endod 2013 Dec;39(12):1572-1575.
  29. Fracture strength of roots instrumented with self-adjusting file and the protaper rotary systems. J Endod 2014 Apr;40(4):551-554.
  30. Adhesion of endodontic sealers to dentin and gutta-percha. J Endod 2002 Oct;28(10):684-688.
  31. Effect of Er:YAG laser on adhesion of root canal sealers. J Endod 2002 Mar;28(3):185-187.
  32. Penetration of dentinal tubules by endodontic sealer cements in extracted teeth and in vivo. Int Endod J 2007 Nov;40(11):873-881.
  33. Comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of root dentin to resin sealers and a MTA sealer: an in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014 Jan;17(1):53-56.
  34. An in vitro comparative evaluation of fracture resistance of endodontically treated teeth obturated with different materials. Contemp Clin Dent 2010 Apr;1(2):70-72.
  35. Influence of root embedment material and periodontal ligament simulation on fracture resistance tests. Braz Oral Res 2005 Jan-Mar;19(1):11-16.
  36. Influence of different restorative techniques on the strength of endodontically treated weakened roots. Int J Dent 2012;2012:343712.
  37. Root strains associated with different obturation techniques. J Endod 1995 Jun;21(6):314-320.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.