Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper

• Published in: International endodontic journal 2012-05, Vol.45 (5), p.449-461
• Main Authors: Bürklein, S., Hinschitza, K., Dammaschke, T., Schäfer, E.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: canal curvature; canal straightening; Canals; Computers; Data processing; debris; Dental Pulp Cavity - anatomy & histology; Dental Pulp Cavity - diagnostic imaging; Dentin - anatomy & histology; Equipment Design; Equipment Failure; Fractures; Humans; Image processing; Image Processing, Computer-Assisted - methods; Materials Testing; Radiography; reciprocating motion; Root Canal Preparation - instrumentation; Root Canal Preparation - methods; Root Canal Preparation - standards; root canals; Rotation; Smear Layer; Surface Properties; Teeth; Time Factors; Tooth Apex - anatomy & histology; Tooth Cervix - anatomy & histology; Torque
• ISSN: 0143-2885; 1365-2591
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x

Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single‐file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. International Endodontic Journal, 45, 449–461, 2012. Aim  To compare shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two reciprocating single‐file systems with Mtwo and ProTaper rotary instruments during the preparation of curved root canals in extracted teeth. Methodology  A total of 80 root canals with curvatures ranging between 25° and 39° were divided into four groups of 20 canals. Based on radiographs taken prior to instrumentation, the groups were balanced with respect to the angle and the radius of canal curvature. Canals were prepared to the following apical sizes: Mtwo: size 35 using the single‐length technique; ProTaper: F3, instruments were used in a modified crown‐down manner; Reciproc and WaveOne: size 25. Using pre‐ and post‐instrumentation radiographs, straightening of the canal curvatures was determined with a computer image analysis program. Preparation time and instrument failures were also recorded. These data were analysed statistically using anova and Student–Newman–Keuls test. The amounts of debris and smear layer were quantified on the basis of a numerical evaluation scale and were analysed statistically using the Kruskal–Wallis test. Results  During preparation no file fractured. All instruments maintained the original canal curvature well with no significant differences between the different files (P = 0.382). Instrumentation with Reciproc was significantly faster than with all other instruments (P