CURRENT LITERATURE

Shaping Ability of 4 Different Single-file Systems in Simulated S-shaped Canals

Abdulrahman Mohammed Saleh, PhD, Pouyan Vakili Gilani, DDS , Saeid Tavanafar, DDS , Edgar Schäfer, PhD

In paper due to be published in the Journal of Endodontics, and posted on-line on January 6, 2015  Saleh et al studied the shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. The null hypothesis tested was that there is no difference between the single-file systems (reciprocating and rotating) regarding the preparation of simulated S-shaped canals.

The authors rejected the null hypothesis “because significant differences were obtained between the 4 single-file systems regarding their shaping ability in S-shaped canals.

Within the parameters of this study, both reciprocating files showed a marked tendency to straighten the S-shaped canals, whereas F360 and OneShape [ed. The ZONE]  files maintained the original canal curvatures well.”

The authors highlighted the following from their research:

  • We evaluated the shaping ability of 4 single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals.
  • Files that are less tapered seem to be more favorable.
  • OneShape and Reciproc were shown to be faster than WaveOne and F360.
  • WaveOne and Reciproc should be used with care in canals with severe curvature.

The published abstract appears below:

Abstract

Introduction

The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals.

Methods

Sixty-four S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size of 25 using Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), OneShape [ed. The ZONE] (Micro Méga, Besançon, France), and F360 (Komet Brasseler, Lemgo, Germany) (n = 16 canals/group) systems. Composite images were made from the superimposition of pre- and postinstrumentation images. The amount of resin removed by each system was measured by using a digital template and image analysis software. Canal aberrations and the preparation time were also recorded. The data were statistically analyzed by using analysis of variance, Tukey, and chi-square tests.

Results

Canals prepared with the F360 and OneShape systems were better centered compared with the Reciproc and WaveOne systems. Reciproc and WaveOne files removed significantly greater amounts of resin from the inner side of both curvatures (P < .05). Instrumentation with OneShape and Reciproc files was significantly faster compared with WaveOne and F360 files (P < .05). No instrument fractured during canal preparation.

Conclusions

Under the conditions of this study, all single-file instruments were safe to use and were able to prepare the canals efficiently. However, single-file systems that are less tapered seem to be more favorable when preparing S-shaped canals.

 

Dr. Barry H. Korzen

View the Article »

Please Login or Register to post comments