• Users Online: 128
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 61-67

Shaping ability of different endodontic single-file systems using simulated resin blocks


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry, Duhok University, Duhok, Iraq
2 Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ajman University of Science and Technology, Ajman, United Arab Emirates

Correspondence Address:
Abdul Rahman Mohammed Saleh
Department of Restorative Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Ajman University of Science and Technology, P.O. Box 346, Ajman
United Arab Emirates
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/2229-6360.197745

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of four different single-file systems; WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Reciproc (VDW), OneShape (Micro Mega), and F360 (Komet Brasseler, Lemgo, Germany). Stainless steel K-file (KSS) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was used as a control during the preparation of simulated root canals. Materials and Methods: Eighty L-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size of 25 using one of the five groups (each group = 16). A series of pre- and post-operative images were taken by a digital camera (EOS 650D. Canon) and superimposed on two different layers. The amount of resin removed from both the inner and the outer sides of the canal were measured at five different points: orifice, half way of the orifice, beginning of the curvature, apex of the curve, and the apical end. The amount of resin removed by each system was measured using image analysis software. Canal aberrations and the preparation time were also recorded. The data were statistically analyzed by using analysis of variance, Tukey's post hoc, and Chi-square tests. Results: There are significant differences between all single files and KSS in time for preparation (P < 0.05) while there is no significant difference between all single nickel-titanium (NiTi) files. No instrument is fractured during canal preparation. More canal aberrations were reported with hand K-files in which there is a highly significant difference compared with other single-file systems. OneShape file reported fewer canal aberrations, but all OneShape files deformed after use. There are significant differences between single NiTi files and KSSs in preserving the canal curvature while there is no significant difference between all single NiTi files. Reciproc and WaveOne files removed significantly greater amounts of resin from the inner side at the beginning and apex of the curve (P < 0.05). Canals prepared with the F360 and OneShape systems were better centered compared with the Reciproc and WaveOne systems. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, NiTi instruments are superior to stainless steel K-files in their shaping ability. All single-file systems maintained root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Canals prepared with the F360 and OneShape systems were better centered compared with the Reciproc and WaveOne systems.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)
 

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed400    
    Printed23    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded13    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal