Comparison of the centering ability of Wave.One and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals.
- Author:
Young Jun LIM
1
;
Su Jung PARK
;
Hyeon Cheol KIM
;
Kyung San MIN
Author Information
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords: Centering ratio; Nickel-Titanium instrument; Reciproc; Wave.One
- MeSH: Dental Pulp Cavity; Electrons; Fatigue
- From:Restorative Dentistry & Endodontics 2013;38(1):21-25
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
- 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.
