Authors: Y.-J. Lim, S.-J. Park, H. C. Kim, K.-S. Min
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)