Authors: Marco A. Versiani, G. B. Leoni, L. Steier, G. De-Deus, S. Tassani, J. D. Pécora, M. D. de Sousa-Neto
Rubrics: Canal shaping
Keywords: preparation, micro–computed tomography, reciprocating motion, root canal preparation, oval canals
Introduction The newly developed single-file systems claimed to be able to prepare the root canal space with only 1 instrument. The present study was designed to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the preparation of oval-shaped root canals using single- or multiple-file systems.
Methods Seventy-two single-rooted mandibular canines were matched based on similar morphologic dimensions of the root canal achieved in a micro-computed tomographic evaluation and assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups (n = 18) according to the preparation technique (ie, Self-Adjusting File [ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel], WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland], Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany], and ProTaper Universal [Dentsply Maillefer] systems). Changes in the 2- and 3-dimensional geometric parameters were compared with preoperative values using analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test between groups and the paired sample t test within groups (? = 0.05).
Results Preparation significantly increased the analyzed parameters; the outline of the canals was larger and showed a smooth taper in all groups. Untouched areas occurred mainly on the lingual side of the middle third of the canal. Overall, a comparison between groups revealed that SAF presented the lowest, whereas WaveOne and ProTaper Universal showed the highest mean increase in most of the analyzed parameters (P < .05).
Conclusion All systems performed similarly in terms of the amount of touched dentin walls. Neither technique was capable of completely preparing the oval-shaped root canals.