Header menu link for other important links
Comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems in simulated canals
Published in University of Dicle
Volume: 12
Issue: 1
Pages: 22 - 30

To compare the shaping ability of two reciprocating single-file systems; WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) with two full-sequence systems; ProTaper Next (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Mtwo (VDW, Munich, Germany) in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped canals. A total of 128 resin blocks were included. These were divided into 64 L-shaped and 64 S-shaped simulated canals in which each was subdivided into four subgroups of 16 samples each (n=16/ canal shape/group). All canals were prepared to apical size of 25 using WaveOne (primary file), Reciproc (R25), Mtwo (10, 15, 20 & 25) and ProTaper Next (X1 & X2). A series of preoperative and postoperative images were taken by a digital camera and superimposed in two different layers to make composite images. The amount of resin removed by each system was measured using a digital template and image analysis software. The amount of resin removed from both the inner and outer sides of the canal was measured to the level of 10 mm from the apical tip, at 1 mm increment. The data were statistically analysed by using analysis of variance and Tukey's post hoc test. In L-shaped simulated canals, WaveOne and Reciproc significantly removed more resin from the outer wall of the apical end (P < 0.05). At the middle part of the canal, ProTaper Next significantly removed the least amount of resin from the inner wall (P < 0.05). In S-shaped samples, ProTaper Next significantly removed the least amount of resin from the inner side of both curvatures (P < 0.05). No instrument fractured during canal preparation of all groups. Under the conditions of this study, all rotary file instruments were safe to use and were able to prepare the canals efficiently. However, single-file systems seem to result in more straightening in the apical part of the canals of the L-shaped samples, and seem to be less favorable when preparing S-shaped canals because of their increased taper. ProTaper Next removed the least amount of resin and maintained centricity best. © 2019 Journal of International Dental and Medical Research.

About the journal
JournalJournal of International Dental and Medical Research
PublisherUniversity of Dicle
Open AccessNo
Concepts (5)
  •  related image
    Asymmetric rotation
  •  related image
  •  related image
    Shaping ability
  •  related image
    Simulated canals
  •  related image