Comparative evaluation of flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with four different endodontic file systems: An In Vitro study.

BACKGROUND: Under axial loading, there is stress concentration around the cervical areas especially in the premolars because of their location in the arch. AIM: To evaluate and compare flexural fracture resistance of mandibular premolars after instrumentation with ProTaper((R))Universal, ProTaper Next((R)), OneShape((R)), and WaveOne((R)) endodontic file systems. METHODS: Seventy-five mandibular premolar teeth with single straight canals were divided into five different groups (n = 15): Group A: Control, Group B: ProTaper Universal (PTU), Group C: ProTaper Next (PTN), Group D: OneShape, Group E: WaveOne. The teeth were instrumented as per the manufacturer's instructions. After obturation and core placement, the teeth were placed in a customized jig mounted on a universal testing machine where force was applied at 45 degrees on the buccal cusp and the force required to fracture the teeth was noted. RESULTS: Amongst all the instrumented groups, WaveOne showed the highest resistance to fracture (1065.56 +/- 175.05) and the control group was 1104.13 +/- 188.42. All groups showed a significant difference in the fracture load values with the control group. However, there was a statistically significant (P < 0.05) difference seen with WaveOne vs PTU and WaveOne vs OneShape. CONCLUSIONS: Root canals instrumented with reciprocating motion have better flexural fracture resistance than continuous rotary motion. Mandibular premolars when instrumented with ProTaper Universal and OneShape endodontic files showed similar fracture resistance, proving that dentin removal does not depend on the number of files used.