{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.030303030303030304, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01855287569573284, 'mean_word_length': 4.970479704797048, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Evaluation of the dentin remaining after flaring using Gates Glidden drills and Protaper rotary files

Introduction: The application of rotary instruments for root canal preparation requires a safe, not harming procedure to the root structure remaining. Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the root thickness in 28 mesial canals of lower permanent first molars before and after flaring using two rotary instruments: Gates-Glidden drills and ProTaper rotary files. Material and methods:Teeth were embedded into a muffle system. Samples were obtained by cutting 2mm below the furcation. The images were captured by a digital video system (8X and 12X magnification). For image analysis and processing, Pro-Image Plus 4.1 software was used. Each image captured by the computer was gauged, eliminating any possible distortion. Gates-Glidden drills were used in decreasing order of size (GG#4, GG#3, GG#2). ProTaper was used according to the manufacturer’s recommendations, with hand-piece powered by an electric motor with low torque. 5.25% sodium hypochlorite was utilized as irrigant. Results: The average thickness between the canal and furcation before and after use of rotary instruments were: 0.857 mm and 0.561 mm for Gates-Glidden drills, and 0.858 mm and 0.486 mm for ProTaper, respectively. No statistical differences were found in the root thickness of specimens shaped with ProTaper rotary files and Gates Glidden drills. Conclusion:The use of Gates-Glidden drills is as safe as ProTaper rotary files with respect to danger of perforation on the distal side of the mesial roots of lower molars.