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

Authors: Y.-J. Lim, S.-J. Park, H. C. Kim, K.-S. Min
Year: 2013
Journal:
Rubrics:
Keywords: centering ratio, NiTi instruments, reciproc

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 crosssectional 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 (? = 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 glidepath larger than #15. (Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(1):21-25)

Link to study: 

Back to list

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our site. Cookies are files stored in your browser and are used by most websites to help personalize your web experience. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of use, Privacy Policy and Use of Cookies for performance, functionality and advertising.