RESUMEN

The smear layer removal capability of different instrumentation techniques on the mesio-buccal root canals of maxillary first molars is of interest to dentists. Sixty extracted maxillary first molars with fully developed apices, curved root canals, and curvatures between 30 to 45 degrees were selected. The teeth were divided into four groups (n=15) based on the instrumentation technique used. The samples were analyzed using a thermal field emission scanning electron microscope to assess smear layer removal at the apical, middle, and coronal thirds of the canals. The Wave One file system showed superior performance in smear layer removal across all three regions of the canal compared to hand files, Hyflex CM rotary files and SAF.

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate six files on the pericervical dentin (PCD) and the smallest dentin thickness zones (SDTZ) in mesial root canals of mandibular molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty mandibular molars with two mesial canals and Vertucci configuration were aleatory allocated in 6 experimental groups of 10 molars and 20 root canals. Specimens were scanned before instrumentation using the SkyScan 1275 (Bruker microCT, Kontich, Belgium). Group 1 was treated with WaveOne Gold (WG), group 2 with Reciproc Blue (RB), group 3 with TRUShape (TS), group 4 with XP-endo Shaper (XP), group 5 with iRace (IR), and group 6 with TruNatomy (TN). After instrumentation, the molars were scanned again and the images recorded were reconstructed with the NRecon v.1.7 (Bruker micro-CT) and analyzed with CTAn v.1.20.8 software (Bruker micro-CT) quantifying the changes produced in the surface, volume, structure thickness, SMI, and centroids at the Pericervical Dentin area of the root canals (PCD) located from the root canal orifices at the floor of the pulp chamber to 4 mm in the apical direction, and the changes in the Smallest Dentin Thickness Zones (SDTZ) located (from the furcation to 4 mm and 7 mm in the apical direction. The data obtained were compared using Wilcoxon and ANOVA with a 5% significance level. RESULTS: XP and TN were similar in all the parameters (P >.05) at the PCD, but TN showed significant differences from WG, RB, TS, and IR (P <.05), while XP showed significant differences from WG (P <.05) in volume, surface, and structure thickness. Regarding the changes in the SDTZ, the amount of dentin removed was similar between the groups in both canals at the middle 1/3, at the cervical 1/3 for MB canals, and in ML canals for RB, TS, XP, IR, and TN (P>.05). The action of WG was significantly different from that of XP and TN in the cervical 1/3 of the ML canal (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: XP and TN rotatory files with small taper and volume maintained better with minor changes at the PCD and SDTZ, while WG reciprocation file produced the largest change. All the files were maintained centered at the PCD, and their performances were safe with a minimal thickness higher 0.5 mm at the SDTZ, and without risk of perforation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: No clinical trials were indicated in this study. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The choice of endodontic files is a relevant factor in the conservative performance of root canal treatments.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

Aim: To evaluate the cleaning ability of two single-file rotary systems- Self-Adjusting File (SAF) and Wave one (WO) systems in removing the smear layer using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) + ethylene diamine tetraacetic acid (EDTA) and NaOCl + Qmix as irrigants at apical one-third of the root canal. Methods: Forty extracted human mandibular premolars were selected and working length was determined. The canal was manually instrumented up to a number 25 size K-file. The roots were divided into the following groups with 10 samples each - Group 1 using SAF: Group 1a- 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, Group 1b- 3% NaOCl + Qmix. Group2 using WO: Group 2a- 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, Group 2b- 3% NaOCl + Qmix. In the SAF group, the irrigation was performed continuously using the special irrigation apparatus. In the WO group, syringe irrigation was done followed by final irrigant activation using passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). The roots were sectioned longitudinally and subjected to scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination. The amount of smear layer was evaluated using a five score index at the apical third level. Statistical analysis was performed using the Chi-square test. Results: Group 1 (SAF) showed better canal cleanliness at apical third compared to Group 2 (WO) with both irrigant combinations and the results were statistically significant (p<0.05). 3% NaOCl + Qmix was equally as effective as 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA in removing the smear layer with no significant difference between them. Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, SAF in combination with 3% NaOCl + Qmix or 3% NaOCl + 17% EDTA should be used for removing smear layer in critical areas of the root canal.

RESUMEN

Introduction: The present study aimed to compare the capability of two single-file shaping systems in disinfecting and cleaning long oval root canals. Materials and Methods: Fifty single-rooted teeth were prepared, contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis and divided into two groups. Two samplings were obtained; S1 before chemo-mechanical preparation and S2 after the preparation. Depending on the group, chemo-mechanical preparation was performed with XP-endo Shaper (XPS) and Wave One Gold (WOG). Five teeth from each group were observed under scanning electron microscopy (1000×) to evaluate the cleanliness of root canals at 3, 6 and 9 mm from the apex. All probability (P-values) were two-tailed, statistical significance was set at 0.05 and analyses were conducted using SPSS statistical software. Results: A significant reduction in the colony forming units was observed from S1 to S2 in both tested groups. In S2, XPS group obtained significantly lower colony forming units (P<0.001). In the cleanliness study, XPS group resulted in significantly cleaner canals compared to WOG. Conclusions: Based on this in vitro study XPS system was more effective in disinfecting and cleaning long oval canals.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: To ensure that endodontic treatment is as effective as possible, it is important to remove any smear layer that forms as part of the instrumentation procedure. This layer might reduce the overall effectiveness of endodontic therapy. AIM OF THE STUDY: For this research, two distinct types of rotary NiTi files were compared: WaveOne Gold (WOG) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and F360 (Komet Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) for its capacity to eliminate trash and the smear layer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two groups (n=20 each) of 40 mandibular second premolar teeth were employed in this investigation, with each group receiving a random allocation of teeth. The F360 system and the WaveOne Gold system are two sets of instruments. The samples were irrigated with a mixture of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (5.25%) and citric acid (40%). Finally, all samples in the centre of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: F360 instrument showed a statistically significant difference for smear layer removal among all thirds of the root canal whereas WOG resulted in a significant difference when the apical third was compared to the middle and coronal third. Significant differences were found in the middle and apical third in terms of smear layer removal between the two groups. Both F360 and WOG instruments showed statistically significant differences for debris removal among all thirds of the root canal. No significant differences were found in the coronal, middle, and apical third in terms of debris removal between the two groups. CONCLUSION: WOG resulted in cleaner canals compared to the F360 file system at coronal, middle, and apical third.

RESUMEN

AIM OF THE STUDY: Need for our study was to evaluate a comparison between canal preparation ability of nickel-titanium (NiTi) hand files with step-back manual technique, of NiTi files installed on a reciprocating hand piece and of Wave-One files utilizing noninvasive cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) technique. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty extracted intact single-rooted human mandibular premolars were used in the study, segregated in three sets of 10 specimens each, where canal instrumentation was done by different methods using NiTi in step-back technique, using reciprocating hand piece with NiTi files and using primary file with the use of Wave-One reciprocating system. Later, evaluation of centering ability was conducted using the references through CBCT images. RESULTS: Hand NiTi files showed even less canal centering ability as compared to other two sets. Mesiodistal diameter at 9 mm length of the prepared canal was 1.06 and later was 0.98, which shows excessive preparation in case of Set I versus Set II. In case of comparison between Set III and Set I, mesiodistal diameter at 9 mm length of the prepared canal was 0.99, and later was 1.06, depicting better canal shaping ability with Wave-One file. CONCLUSION: The use of hand NiTi files installed on a reciprocating hand piece would be economically beneficial producing the similar results as that of wave one without any deviation from the original canal anatomy.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: This research studies and compares the shaping ability of WaveOne Gold (WG; Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK), the Reciproc Blue (RB; VDW, Munich, Germany), TRUShape (TS, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties), XP-endo Shaper (XP; FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), iRace (IR, FKG), and TruNatomy (TN; Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland) in the preparation of moderately curved canals and using micro-computed tomographic technology. METHODS: Sixty lower molars with 2 mesial canals were randomly distributed into 6 groups of 10 molars and 20 canals per group (n = 20). Specimens were scanned before and after preparation using the SkyScan 1275 (Bruker microCT, Kontich, Belgium). Group 1 was treated with WG, group 2 with RB, group 3 with TS, group 4 with XP, group 5 with IR, and group 6 with TN. After instrumentation, researchers quantified the changes produced in the canal geometry in terms of surface, volume, structure thickness, surface convexity index, structure model index, percentage of surface touched, and centroids. Wilcoxon and analysis of variance tests were performed to compare the values before and after preparation and the differences between groups. The significance level was established at 5%. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between WG and RB (P > .05) and between TN and XP (P > .05). TN had significant differences with WG, RB, TS, and IR (P < .05). All the files produced similar apical transportation (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: WG and RB and TN and XP had similar shaping effectivity. TS and WG touched the highest percentages of canal surfaces (81% and 73%, respectively) but produced the biggest changes in the canal anatomy. TN and XP better kept the canal anatomy, but TN touched the lowest percentage of canal surface (50%). All the files used were able to clean and to shape moderately curved canals with minimal apical transportation.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Wave One® (WO) and One Shape® (OS) are among the common endodontic file systems having rotary and reciprocating movement of instrument, respectively. The study evaluated the postoperative pain after single-visit root canal treatment using single file rotary and reciprocating system. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The present study was conducted in the department of conservative dentistry and endodontics on 68 teeth of patients aged between 20 and 45 years. Sixty-eight teeth were divided into two study groups. In Group A, instrumentation with OS file systems (n = 34) was done with subgroup A1 having patients without periapical lesion (n = 17) and subgroup A2 having patients with periapical lesion (n = 17). In Group B, instrumentation with WO file systems (n = 34) was done with subgroup B1 having patients without periapical lesion (n = 17) and subgroup B2 having patients with periapical lesion (n = 17). The root canal shaping procedures were performed according to the manufacturer's instructions for each instrument system. Presence of postobturation pain was accessed by visual analog scale (VAS) scale (0-10), where 0 showed no pain, 1-3 mild pain, 4-6 moderate pain, 7-9 severe pain, and 10 worst possible pain. RESULTS: The intensity of pain was measured with VAS score in patients without periapical lesions and with periapical lesions using WO and OS file system on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th day. VAS score was found to be nonsignificant on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 7th day in both groups (P > 0.05). Intergroup comparison of VAS score was found to be nonsignificant (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both systems were found to have similar effect with respect to postoperative pain. However, WO single file system presented less pain as compared to OS system in cases with periapical lesion. Large sample studies are required to substantiate the result obtained in this study.

RESUMEN

An infected human root canal system harbors harmful microbiota that needs to be eliminated by root canal therapy. But the human root canal system is known to have a complex anatomy. Hence, the knowledge of a possibly aberrant anatomy is deemed necessary before carrying out a root canal therapy. Usually, the maxillary second molars have three roots and three or four root canals (a second mesiobuccal canal as the fourth canal). The presence of a second palatal root and a second palatal root canal is very rare (1.4% incidence). Failure to locate and treat such aberrant external and internal anatomy results in a compromised root canal therapy. With the introduction of advanced imaging and visualization techniques such as cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) and dental operating microscopes, the variations in root anatomy have been successfully detected and treated. This case report describes the endodontic management of a second maxillary molar with two palatal roots and four separate canals, performed with the help of CBCT.

RESUMEN

CONTEXT: Enterococcus faecalis is the most common bacteria found in infected root canals. AIM: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of the mono instrument (wave-one®) on the reduction of E. faecalis in root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-two human monoroot teeth were used. After sterilization by autoclave, the teeth were infected by E. faecalis and incubated for 24 h. Each tooth underwent sampling before and after the root canal shaping. After serial dilution, samples were incubated, and colony-forming units were counted. RESULTS: The mono instrument technique reduced infection by E. faecalis in root canals of 30 teeth. The mean bacterial load (log10) was 3.98 before treatment and 1.20 after treatment. The paired t-test showed a significant mean difference (log10) of the bacterial load before and after treatment (P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: This study found that the mono instrument (Wave One®) significantly decreases bacterial load in root canals. However, the instrument alone is not enough to eradicate infections; thus, the use of a complementary antimicrobial is required.

RESUMEN

AIM: The aim of the present study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of three rotary nickel-titanium (NiTi) systems (Twisted Files [TF], HyFlex controlled memory [CM], and Wave One [WO]) in curved root canals using computed tomography (CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty freshly extracted single-rooted teeth having curved root canals with at least 25-35 degrees of curvature were selected. The teeth were randomly divided into three experimental groups of twenty each. After preparation with TF, HyFlex CM, and WO, all teeth were scanned using CT to determine the root canal shape. Pre- and post-instrumentation images were obtained at three levels, 3 mm apical, 9 mm middle, and 15 mm coronal above the apical foramen were compared using CT software. Amount of transportation and centering ability were assessed. The three groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey's honestly significant difference test. RESULTS: Least apical transportation and higher centering ability were seen in HyFlex CM file system in all the three sections followed by TF. WO file system showed maximum transportation. CONCLUSIONS: The canal preparation with HyFlex CM file system showed lesser transportation and better centering ability than TF, WO file system.

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: All endodontic instrumentation systems tested so far, promote apical extrusion of debris, which is one of the main causes of postoperative pain, flare ups, and delayed healing. OBJECTIVES: Of this meta-analysis was to collect and analyze in vitro studies quantifying apically extruded debris while using Hand ProTaper (manual), ProTaper Universal (rotary), Wave One (reciprocating), and self-adjusting file (SAF; vibratory) endodontic instrumentation systems and to determine methods which produced lesser extrusion of debris apically. METHODOLOGY: An extensive electronic database search was done in PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, LILACS, and Google Scholar from inception until February 2016 using the key terms "Apical Debris Extrusion, extruded material, and manual/rotary/reciprocating/SAF systems." A systematic search strategy was followed to extract 12 potential articles from a total of 1352 articles. The overall effect size was calculated from the raw mean difference of weight of apically extruded debris. RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was seen in the following comparisons: SAF < Wave One, SAF < Rotary ProTaper. CONCLUSIONS: Apical extrusion of debris was invariably present in all the instrumentation systems analyzed. SAF system seemed to be periapical tissue friendly as it caused reduced apical extrusion compared to Rotary ProTaper and Wave One.

RESUMEN

INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the formation of microcracks after canal preparation performed with different single-file systems as One Shape (Micro-Mega, Besancon, Cedex, France), F6 SkyTaper (Komet Italia Srl, Milan, Italy), HyFlex EDM (Coltene/Whaledent AG, Altstatten, Switzerland), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), and WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer). METHODS: Eighty-four human extracted mandibular central incisors (40-60 y) were selected and divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 12 teeth) and a control group (unprepared teeth): One Shape (group 1), F6 SkyTaper (group 2), HyFlex EDM (group 3), WaveOne (group 4), Reciproc (group 5), and WaveOne Gold (group 6). Roots were then sectioned at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, and the surface was observed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using logistic regression (P < .05). RESULTS: No cracks were observed in the control group. All the systems tested caused cracks, mainly in the apical section (3 mm). HyFlex EDM (33.3%) and WaveOne Gold (58.3%) showed fewer microcracks than other experimental groups (P < .01); however, no significant difference was found between them in crack formation (P > .05). There was no difference among the other experimental groups (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: All the instruments tested created dentinal cracks. Within the limitations of this study, the flexibility of nickel-titanium instruments because of heat treatment seems to have a significant influence on dentinal crack formation. HyFlex EDM and WaveOne Gold caused less microcracks than the other instruments tested.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this prospective, randomized, double-blind study was to compare postoperative pain of root canal treatment in patients with asymptomatic mandibular molar teeth with necrotic pulp and periapical lesion using three different instrumentation techniques: hand, multi-file rotary (ProTaper Universal), and reciprocating single-file (Wave-One) instrumentation techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ninety-six patients who fulfilled specific inclusion criteria were assigned to three groups according to the root canal instrumentation technique used: Hand (G1), ProTaper Universal (G2), and Wave-One (G3). One-visit root canal treatment was carried out, and the severity of the postoperative pain was assessed by the Heft-Parker visual analogue scale 6, 12, 18, 24, 48, and 72 h after treatment. Data were analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis, χ 2, Cochrane Q, one-way ANOVA, and Spearman's correlation analyses (α = 0.05). RESULTS: The patients in group 3 reported significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6, 12, and 18 h compared with the patients in the two other groups (P < .05). In addition, the patients in group 2 reported significantly lower postoperative pain levels at 6 and 12 h compared with the patients in group 1 (P < .05). There were no significant differences in postoperative pain between the three groups at other time intervals (P > .05). The analgesic consumption was significantly higher in group 1 (P < .05), but no difference was seen between the two other groups (P > .05). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Postoperative pain was significantly lower in patients undergoing root canal instrumentation with the Wave-One file compared with the ProTaper Universal and hand files.

Asunto(s)

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Primary root canals are considered to be most challenging due to their complex anatomy. "Wave one" and "one shape" are single-file systems with reciprocating and rotary motion respectively. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare dentin thickness, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation time of wave one and one shape files in primary root canals using a cone beam computed tomographic (CBCT) analysis. STUDY DESIGN: This is an experimental, in vitro study comparing the two groups. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 24 extracted human primary teeth with minimum 7 mm root length were included in the study. Cone beam computed tomographic images were taken before and after the instrumentation for each group. Dentin thickness, centering ability, canal transportation, and instrumentation times were evaluated for each group. RESULTS: A significant difference was found in instrumentation time and canal transportation measures between the two groups. Wave one showed less canal transportation as compared with one shape, and the mean instrumentation time of wave one was significantly less than one shape. CONCLUSION: Reciprocating single-file systems was found to be faster with much less procedural errors and can hence be recommended for shaping the root canals of primary teeth. How to cite this article: Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. Reciprocating vs Rotary Instrumentation in Pediatric Endodontics: Cone Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Deciduous Root Canals using Two Single-File Systems. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016;9(1):45-49.

RESUMEN

AIMS: This study compared the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape (Micro Mega) rotary file and Wave One primary reciprocating file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty International Organization for Standardization 15, 0.02 taper, Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer) were used. In all specimens working length (WL) was established at the reference point 0. Glide path was achieved with Path-File 1, 2 and 3 (Dentsply Maillefer) at the WL. Group 1 were shaped with One Shape file and group 2 with Wave One files. Pre and post-digital images were superimposed, processed with Corel draw Graphic Suite X5 (Corel Corporation, Ottawa, Canada), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA) and Solid works student Edition software (Dassault Systems Solid Works Corp, S.A., Velizy, France). RESULTS: Mean was more for Wave One compared with One Shape. One-way ANOVA and t-test showed a significant difference between One Shape and Wave One at 5% level of significance (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Canals prepared with Wave One file preserved canal shape, respected the anatomical shape of J-shaped canal and produced a continuously tapered funnel.

RESUMEN

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 (α = 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.

RESUMEN

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.

Asunto(s)