Cone Beam Computed Tomography Analysis of Post Space in Bifurcated Premolars Using ParaPost and Peeso Reamer Drills

Core buildups are usually maintained by the usage of posts. Even so, in curved and narrow canals, such as bifurcated premolars, excessive dentin removal during post-space preparation can result in a vertical root fracture or perforation. In order to preserve root canal dentin during post-space preparation of bifurcated premolars, this study examined and analyzed the effects of two widely used drills: Peeso Reamer (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and ParaPost (Coltene/Whaledent, Inc., Altstätten, Switzerland). We also examined the risks associated with using Cone-beam Computed Tomography (CBCT).

Three operators with varying levels of experience treated a total of 72 removed bifurcated premolars, dividing them into equal groups. The rotary ProFile system (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC) was utilized for root canal treatments, and gutta-percha size #30/0.4 was used for obturation. Peeso Reamer #2 and ParaPost #1 were then used to prepare the palatal canals. CBCT was used to assess the total mean intracanal spaces of 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm that were measured both preoperatively and postoperatively. To compare the mean dentin thickness within the canal area across all groups, we used analysis of variance testing. We detected complications, like deviations or perforations, using mesiodistal periapical radiographs.

When utilizing the Peeso Reamer, the mean dentin thickness (0.749 mm) was slightly more than when using the ParaPost (0.736 mm) with p=0.16. There was no significant difference in the mean dentin thickness of the canal area between the Peeso Reamer and the ParaPost drills. The Pesso Reamer drill had fewer complications since it matched the canal configuration, while the Parapost drill removed somewhat more dentin in the canal area. Only seven teeth with minimum deviation from the center of the canal during preparation were produced by the Peeso Reamer drill (20% of teeth having deviation), whereas twenty-one teeth had deviations (72.2% of teeth) and eight had furcal perforations generated by the ParaPost.

Within the limitations of our study, the Pesso Reamer drill caused little more dentin removal than the ParaPost drill. However, the Peeso Reamer had fewer risks and was safer to use in bifurcated premolars. The ParaPost drill is not recommended in bifurcated premolars due to the high risks of deviation and perforation because they have narrow canals. The selection of an appropriate drill for post-space use in bifurcated premolars is essential for successful patient outcomes.