How to Upload Folder of Prt Files Oneshape

Comparative evaluation of shaping power of rotary and reciprocating nickel-titanium single file instruments on imitation root canals

Section of Bourgeois Dentistry and Endodontics, Rajas Dental Higher and Hospital, The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical Academy, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Web Publication

eight-January-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. A Sheerin Sarthaj
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rajas Dental College and Infirmary, The Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
India

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/sej.sej_19_18

Introduction: Effective cleaning of the root canal arrangement is the principal objective of rotary instrumentation. For three-dimensional obturation of the root canal system, ideal preparation should have a continuously tapering funnel shape from the orifice to the noon. The study aimed to evaluate the shaping ability of 2 rotary and two reciprocating nickel-titanium (NiTi) single-file instruments on false root canals using paradigm analysis software.
Materials and Methods: Xl resin blocks with simulated canals of thirty° curvature were divided into four experimental groups containing ten samples in each grouping. The canals were prepared using Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Deutschland), WaveOne (Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), OneShape (Micro-Mega, Besancon, France), and F360 (Komet, Brasseler, Lemgo, Frg) size 25 NiTi systems using 10 Smart Plus (Dentsply). Pre- and post-preparation canals were photographed in a standardized manner and were superimposed. The inner and outer walls of canal curvature were evaluated to make up one's mind the almost significant modify using the image assay software.
Results: The amount of resin removed from the inner walls was less with rotary single-file NiTi systems when compared with reciprocating. Preparation time was less with rotary instruments. No instrument separation was noted. All instrument systems maintained the original canal curvature.
Determination: Rotary single-file systems maintained the canal curvature better than reciprocating single-file systems.

Keywords: Canal transportation, Reciproc, reciprocating motility, rotary arrangement, WaveOne

How to cite this article:
Kumar A, Sarthaj A Southward. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of rotary and reciprocating nickel-titanium single file instruments on simulated root canals. Saudi Endod J 2019;9:21-6

How to cite this URL:
Kumar A, Sarthaj A S. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of rotary and reciprocating nickel-titanium single file instruments on simulated root canals. Saudi Endod J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2022 April 16];9:21-6. Available from: https://www.saudiendodj.com/text.asp?2019/9/1/21/249592

Introduction

Endodontic mishaps in the grade of canal transportation, ledges and perforations occur partly considering of inattention to minute details; however, the virtually of which is related to metal technology.^[1] Root canal preparation is performed with files, reamers, burs, sonic instruments or mechanical apparatus and with nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary files systems. Since most hand preparation techniques are time-consuming and may atomic number 82 to iatrogenic errors,^[2] much attention is directed toward root canal training techniques with NiTi rotary instruments. Numerous studies have reported that they could efficiently create polish, predetermined funnel-form shapes, with minimal chance of ledging and transportation.^{[3],[iv],[five]} They as well reduce operator fatigue and the time required to complete the training.^[v] Even though NiTi instruments are known for their superelasticity and shape retention, they have by tensile-compressive forces.^[six] The tensile-compressive forces are higher in the curved compared to the straight canals.

Yared^[7] a pioneer in the field of reciprocating file systems put along the counterbalanced strength technique. The reciprocating files motility both in a counterclockwise and clockwise rotation. The counterclockwise rotation has a cut activity whereas the clockwise has a releasing functioning. The metallurgy of reciprocating files is from M wire applied science to the recently introduced golden wire technology with WaveOne gilded files. This unequal reciprocating movement prevents taper lock and instrument separation.^[7],[8],[9] The purpose of this study was to assess the morphological characteristics of prepared simulated curved canals by the use of four NiTi systems, two rotary, and ii reciprocating. The shaping power was evaluated past the amount of resin removed during instrumentation and besides abstention of iatrogenic errors.

Materials and Methods

A total of forty imitation canals with thirty° curvature in transparent resin blocks (Endo training blocks, Nissin) were used in this study. Upstanding Committee approval was obtained from Rajas Dental College & Hospital. The ethical committee approval number is RDCH/EC/03/2016. Since we used a curved canal morphology to analyze the shaping ability in this study the curved portion of the canal was 6 mm, and the straight part was 13 mm. The instrumentation was done using X Smart IQ Endomotor (Dentsply Maillefer). The endodontic grooming blocks were divided into iv groups (OneShape, F360, WaveOne and Reciproc groups and preinstrumentation photographs of the canals were taken in a standardized manner using a digital photographic camera [Figure 1].

The standardization accomplished by making an elastomeric impression on the base of operations former and a transparent resin block was placed in the center of the impression before it sets to marking a template for the subsequent placement of blocks. The camera was mounted at an angle from the flat surface where the resin blocks were placed and the all the preoperative photographs were made from the same angulation and the same place of placement of resin blocks.

The canal preparation^[10] was begun past checking the patency of the simulated canals with a 10K size file. The working length was kept 0.5 mm short of the apex. The irrigant that was used to remove the debris was distilled water. The instrumentation sequences were as follows:

Group 1

OneShape rotary single-file system (n = ten). The specifications of this file system include 25/0.06, speed 400 rpm, and torque 4Ncm. The files were used in a reaming motion. The motor that was used was X-Smartplus motor.

Grouping 2

F360 rotary single-file arrangement (n = ten). The specifications of this file system include 25/0.04, speed 300 rpm and torque ane.8 N cm. The files were used in a reaming motion. The motor used was X-Smartplus motor.

Group three

WaveOne primary reciprocating single-file system (n = 10) with the tip size, 25; upmost taper, 0.08 was used in a programmed reciprocating move generated by the X Smartplus motor (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The files were used in an in and out pecking motion. With each pecking motion, the instrument avant-garde three mm into the culvert. The droppings accumulated in the flutes was removed using dampened cotton after three consecutive pecking motions.

Group 4

Reciproc reciprocating single-file arrangement (north = 10) with the tip size, 25; apical taper, 0.08 was used in a programmed reciprocating move generated past the X Smartplus motor. The files were used in an in and out pecking motion. With each pecking motion, the instrument advanced 3 mm into the canal. The debris accumulated in the flutes was removed using dampened cotton wool after three consecutive pecking motions.

One operator performed all the preparations.

Apropos the previous studies, for every four canals, a new musical instrument was used.^[9] During the cleaning and shaping of the root culvert arrangement, Glyde-Prep (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was used as a lubricant and Ballaigues, Switzerland) was used as a lubricant and distilled h2o was used for irrigation. After the root canal preparation using the respective File Systems, postoperative images were made under the aforementioned experimental atmospheric condition. The superimposition of images was done on digital software (Adobe Photoshop Elements vii.0, Adobe Systems Incorporated, San Jose, CA, USA). The composite prototype was assessed using an Image Assay Software. The fourth dimension taken for canal preparation, which included total agile instrumentation, cleaning of the flutes of the instruments, and irrigation, was recorded. The presence of various canal aberrations including zipping and elbow, ledges, perforation, danger zone, and outer widening was likewise recorded.^[11]

The shaping power was assessed by the amount of resin that was removed during canal training. Measurements were taken at fixed measurement positions that are 0–iii mm, 3–6 mm, and 6–9 mm. The width of the resin removed from the outer and inner aspects of the curve of the original canal was calculated, and the data were recorded.

The superimposed images are shown in [Figure two]:

Statistical analysis

Statistical evaluations were performed with SPSS 21 software (IBM SPSS Statistics 16, SPSS Inc., Chicago, USA). The statistical tests employed include ANOVA and mail service hoc Tukey's exam for both the shaping ability besides as the preparation times. The significance level was set at (P < 0.05).

Results

The mean and standard departure of the proportion of resin removed from the inner walls of the canal are tabulated in [Tabular array 1].

Table 1: The mean and standard deviation of the proportion of resin removed from the inner walls of the canal are tabulated Click here to view

The graphical representation of the to a higher place results is summarized in [Graph one].

In that location were statistically pregnant differences in the mean values of the inner width of material removal between Reciproc system, OneShape organization, F360, and WaveOne system at all the 3 levels, with the Reciproc file system bearing the highest mean value of all the file systems used in the study.

The hateful and standard deviation of the proportion of resin removed from the outer walls of the canal are tabulated in [Table 2].

Table 2: The mean and standard difference of the proportion of resin removed from the outer walls of the canal are tabulated Click here to view

The graphical representation of the above results is summarized in [Graph two].

There were statistically significant differences in the mean values of the outer width of material removal between Reciproc organization, OneShape organisation, F360, and WaveOne system at all the three levels, with the Reciproc file arrangement bearing the highest mean value of all the file systems used in the report.

The statistically significant results are summarized in [Table 3].

Tabular array 3: Statistically meaning results in resin removal from inner and outer walls Click here to view

Grooming time

The preparation time included the preparation fourth dimension, the cleaning fourth dimension and the irrigation time which was recorded, and the results are tabulated as in [Table 4].

There were meaning differences noted among all the groups, and both the reciprocating file systems, Reciproc and WaveOne took comparatively college preparation fourth dimension than compared with the rotary single file systems, OneShape, and F360.

The incidence of canal ABERRATIONS

The iatrogenic mistake such as canal abnormality was more than with Reciproc file system every bit summarized in [Table 5].

Discussion

Four unlike file systems, namely two rotary OneShape, and F360 and two reciprocating WaveOne and Reciproc were used in this study to evaluate their shaping ability.

The parameters and methodology employed in this study are all standardized.

Resin blocks

Resin blocks were used in this study for standardization even though their hardness differs considerably than that of dentin.^[12]

File systems

All groups of unmarried-file arrangement with size 25 apical diameter were used in this report. The metallurgy of the files included is NiTi for rotary single file systems and M-wire engineering science for reciprocating file systems. The taper differed considerably, 0.08 for Reciproc and WaveOne 0.06 for WaveOne and 0.04 for F360 systems. The cross-sectional design of the files also plays a significant role in the results of the study. First, F360 and OneShape share the aforementioned S-shaped cross-section, which has a considerable cut power. Second, the reciprocating and higher flexibility wire of Reciproc and WaveOne resulted in more resin removal in the coronal portions of the canal due to the double S-shaped and the convex triangular cross-department of the WaveOne reciprocating files. The results of the report may exist related to the movement, cross-sectional design, and thread pitch of instruments. The results of this study were concomitant with those of the survey conducted by Abu Haimed et al.^[10] and they are contradictory to the study by Aminsobhani et al.^[13]

Training time

The training time included the preparation fourth dimension, the cleaning time, and the irrigation time.^[xiv],[xv] Shaping with single-instrumentation takes less fourth dimension compared to the multiple file systems. In a similar report comparing the shaping efficacy of Reciproc and WaveOne versus ProTaper, Schafer et al.^[15] described a significant 60% decrease in shaping time. Even though at that place is a meaning reduction in the overall preparation time, the preparation time for reciprocating files was considerably higher. This may exist due to the increased time required for cleaning of the flutes which augured more droppings coronally.

Canal aberrations

Even though this study analyzed different types of aberrations, the Reciproc file system depicted more number of danger zones than compared to the other three file systems which may exist attributed to its reciprocating motion^[16] and cutting tip.

Width measurement

The shaping ability evaluation was done in three different areas, namely 0–3 mm, three–vi mm, and 6–9 mm, since these areas are more critical in root canal preparations. WaveOne and Reciproc systems testify more cuts in the inner wall than OneShape and F360 systems, so these instruments should exist used cautiously to avoid excessive removal at the inner curve, leading to danger zones and straightening of the canal. The results obtained for the Reciproc organisation are consistent with those of a previous study^[17] which suggested careful preparation of severely curved canals with Reciproc to avoid danger zone formation. However, the results obtained with the WaveOne system are non consequent with the manufacturer'southward recommendations that they can exist efficiently used in Fifty-and S-shaped canals.

The single rotary file systems used in this study have varying tapers, namely 0.04 for F360 and 0.06 for OneShape. However, the reciprocating file systems have a taper of 8%. Hence, the canal shaping ability can be related to the differences in the taper in rotary single file systems.^[18] However, the differences in reciprocating single file systems may exist due to the cross-exclusive designs. The cross sections of Reciproc and WaveOne, respectively, are a double-cut edge South-shaped geometry and modified, convex, triangular cantankerous-department at the tip, and a convex triangular cross-section later that.

Since each file was discarded after instrumenting four canals, there was no baloney or file separation. The findings that were distinctive of this study were related to the taper. Bottom the taper, more authentic is the shaping power.

Conclusion

Inside the limitations of this study, rotary unmarried-file systems prepared narrow canals with less foramen transportation, and with less training fourth dimension, whereas reciprocating unmarried-file systems prepared wider canals with canal straightening and crave more than preparation time.

Fiscal back up and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

1.	Ruddle CJ. Cleaning and shaping the root canal system. In: Cohen S, Bums RC, editors. Pathways of Pulp. 8th ed. St Louis, MO, USA: Mosby; 2002. p. 231-91.
2.	Walton RE, Torabinejad M. Principles and Practice of Endodontics. 3rd ed. Elsevier Health Sciences: Saunders Company; 2002. p. 222.
iii.	Siqueira JF Jr., Araújo MC, Garcia PF, Fraga RC, Dantas CJ. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of v instrumentation techniques for cleaning the upmost third of root canals. J Endod 1997;23:499-502.
four.	Esposito PT, Cunningham CJ. A comparison of canal preparation with nickel-titanium and stainless steel instruments. J Endod 1995;21:173-6.
5.	Thompson SA, Dummer PM. Shaping ability of proFile. 04 taper series 29 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in fake root canals. Part two. Int Endod J 1997;30:8-xv.
6.	Arias A, Perez-Higueras JJ, de la Macorra JC. Differences in circadian fatigue resistance at apical and coronal levels of reciproc and WaveOne new files. J Endod 2012;38:1244-8.
7.	Yared G. Culvert preparation with only i reciprocating instrument without prior mitt filing: A new concept. Int Dent 2012;2:78-87.
viii.	Pirani C, Paolucci A, Ruggeri O, Bossù Thou, Polimeni A, Gatto MR, et al. Wear and metallographic assay of WaveOne and reciproc NiTi instruments before and after 3 uses in root canals. Scanning 2014;36:517-25.
9.	Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schäfer Due east. Comparative evaluation of the shaping power of WaveOne, reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2015;48:109-14.
10.	Abu Haimed AS, Abu Haimed TS, Dummer P, Bryant ST. The root canal shaping ability of WaveOne and reciproc versus ProTaper Universal and Mtwo rotary NiTi systems. Saudi Endod J 2017;7:8-xv.
eleven.	al-Omari MA, Dummer PM, Newcombe RG. Comparison of six files to prepare faux root canals 1. Int Endod J 1992;25:57-66.
12.	Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: Shaping goals, techniques, and means. Endod Top 2005;10:xxx-76.
13.	Aminsobhani M, Ghorbanzadeh A, Dehghan S, Niasar AN, Kharazifard MJ. A comparing of canal preparations by Mtwo and RaCe rotary files using total sequence versus one rotary file techniques; a cone-beam computed tomography assay. Saudi Endod J 2014;4:lxx-six.   [Total text]
14.	Bürklein South, Hinschitza Yard, Dammaschke T, Schäfer Eastward. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of 2 single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45:449-61.
15.	Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping power in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2006;39:203-12.
16.	Saleh AM, Vakili Gilani P, Tavanafar S, Schäfer Due east. Shaping ability of 4 dissimilar unmarried-file systems in fake S-shaped canals. J Endod 2015;41:548-52.
17.	Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012;37:220-seven.
18.	Al-Fouzan Yard. Variable taper nickel-titanium rotary instrument technique. Saudi Endod J 2011;1:1-six.

  [Figure 1], [Effigy ii]
  [Table i], [Table ii], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5]

jacksonfacquale.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.saudiendodj.com/article.asp?issn=1658-5984;year=2019;volume=9;issue=1;spage=21;epage=26;aulast=Kumar

Share this post