Restor Dent Endod.  2013 Feb;38(1):21-25. 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.21.

Comparison of the centering ability of Wave.One and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals

• Lim YJ
• Park SJ
• Kim HC
• Min KS

• KMID: 1995472
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.21

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping ability of newly marketed single-file instruments, Wave.One (Dentsply-Maillefer) and Reciproc (VDW GmbH), in terms of maintaining the original root canal configuration and curvature, with or without a glide-path.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
According to the instruments used, the blocks were divided into 4 groups (n = 10): Group 1, no glide-path / Wave.One; Group 2, no glide-path / Reciproc; Group 3, #15 K-file / Wave.One; Group 4, #15 K-file / Reciproc. Pre- and post-instrumented images were scanned and the canal deviation was assessed. The cyclic fatigue stress was loaded to examine the cross-sectional shape of the fractured surface. The broken fragments were evaluated under the scanning electron microscope (SEM) for topographic features of the cross-section. Statistically analysis of the data was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's test (alpha = 0.05).
RESULTS
The ability of instruments to remain centered in prepared canals at 1 and 2 mm levels was significantly lower in Group 1 (p < 0.05). The centering ratio at 3, 5, and 7 mm level were not significantly different.
CONCLUSIONS
The Wave.One file should be used following establishment of a glide-path larger than #15.

Keyword

Centering ratio; Nickel-Titanium instrument; Reciproc; Wave.One

MeSH Terms

Dental Pulp Cavity
Electrons
Fatigue

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 (a) The picture indicates the points at which the canal width was measured after superimposition of pre- and post-operative images; (b) X1 represents the maximum extent of canal movement in one direction and X2 is the movement in the opposite direction. Y is the diameter of the final canal preparation.

• 

  Figure 2 Centering ratio of canals at different apical levels. Values are mean ± SD. *A significant difference was determined at p < 0.05. NW, no glide-path / Wave·One; NR, no glide-path / Reciproc; KW, glidepath with K-file / Wave·One; KR, glidepath with K-file / Reciproc.

• 

  Figure 3 Scanning electron micrographs of fracture surface of separated fragments. (a) Reciproc (×200); (b) Wave·One (×180).

Reference

1. Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod. 2008. 34:1406–1409.

2. Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod. 2006. 32:61–65.

3. Plotino G, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. Int Endod J. 2012. 45:614–618.

4. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 2000. 26:161–165.

5. Cheung GS, Peng B, Bian Z, Shen Y, Darvell BW. Defects in ProTaper S1 instruments after clinical use: fractographic examination. Int Endod J. 2005. 38:802–809.

6. Roland DD, Andelin WE, Browning DF, Hsu GH, Torabinejad M. The effect of preflaring on the rates of separation for 0.04 taper nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2002. 28:543–545.

7. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schönenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J. 2003. 36:86–92.

8. Berutti E, Negro AR, Lendini M, Pasqualini D. Influence of manual preflaring and torque on the failure rate of ProTaper rotary instruments. J Endod. 2004. 30:228–230.

9. West JD. The endodontic Glidepath: "Secret to rotary safety". Dent Today. 2010. 29:86–93.

10. Blum JY, Machtou P, Ruddle C, Micallef JP. Analysis of mechanical preparations in extracted teeth using ProTaper rotary instruments: value of the safety quotient. J Endod. 2003. 29:567–575.

11. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971. 32:271–275.

12. Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG Jr. The 'balanced force' concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod. 1985. 11:203–211.

13. Roane JB, Sabala C. Clockwise or counterclockwise. J Endod. 1984. 10:349–353.

14. Southard DW, Oswald RJ, Natkin E. Instrumentation of curved molar root canals with the Roane technique. J Endod. 1987. 13:479–489.

15. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod. 1975. 1:255–262.

16. Dummer PM, Alodeh MH, al-Omari MA. A method for the construction of simulated root canals in clear resin blocks. Int Endod J. 1991. 24:63–66.

17. Kum KY, Spängberg L, Cha BY, Jung IY, Lee SJ, Lee CY. Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod. 2000. 26:719–723.

18. Thomson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of ProFile.04 Taper Series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. Int Endod J. 1997. 30:1–7.

19. Baumann MA, Roth A. Effect of experience on quality of canal preparation with rotary nickel-titanium files. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1999. 88:714–718.

20. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974. 18:269–296.

21. Davis RD, Marshall JG, Baumgartner JC. Effect of early coronal flaring on working length change in curved canals using rotary nickel-titanium versus stainless steel instruments. J Endod. 2002. 28:438–442.

22. Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod. 2000. 26:210–216.