Histological evaluation of the cleaning effectiveness of two reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved root canals: Reciproc versus WaveOne

Maira de Souza Carvalho; Emílio Carlos Sponchiado Junior; Angela Delfina Bitencourt Garrido; Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia; André Augusto Franco Marques

doi:10.4103/1305-7456.149648

European Journal of Dentistry, Table of Contents

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2015; 09(01): 080-086
DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.149648

Original Article

Dental Investigation Society

Histological evaluation of the cleaning effectiveness of two reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved root canals: Reciproc versus WaveOne

Maira de Souza Carvalho

¹Department of Endodontics, State University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil

,

Emílio Carlos Sponchiado Junior

²Department of Endodontics, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil

,

Angela Delfina Bitencourt Garrido

²Department of Endodontics, Federal University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil

,

Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia

³Department of Physiology and Pathology, Araraquara School of Dentistry, Univ Estadual Paulista, Araraquara, São Paulo, Brazil

,

André Augusto Franco Marques

¹Department of Endodontics, State University of Amazonas, Manaus, Amazonas, Brazil

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

PDF Download

ABSTRACT

Objective: The aim of this study was to evaluate the cleaning effectiveness achieved with two reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved root canals: Reciproc and WaveOne. Materials and Methods: Twenty-five mesial roots of mandibular molars were randomly separated into two groups, according to the instrumentation system used. The negative control group consisted of five specimens that were not instrumented. The mesial canals (buccal and lingual) in Reciproc Group were instrumented with file R25 and the WaveOne group with the Primary file. The samples were submitted to histological processing and analyzed under a digital microscope. Results: The WaveOne group presented a larger amount of debris than the Reciproc Group, however, without statistically significant difference (P > 0.05). A larger amount of debris in the control group was observed, with statistically significant difference to Reciproc and WaveOne groups (P < 0.05). Conclusions: The two reciprocating single-file instrumentation systems presented similar effectiveness for root canal cleaning.

Key words:

Cleaning - reciprocating single-file system - reciprocating motion

PDF (1786 kb)

References

REFERENCES
1 Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L, De-Deus G, Tassani S, Pécora JD. et al. Micro-computed tomography study of oval-shaped canals prepared with the self-adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper universal systems. J Endod 2013; 39: 1060-6
2 Marchesan MA, Arruda MP, Silva-Sousa YT, Saquy PC, Pecora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. Morphometrical analysis of cleaning capacity using nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation associated with irrigating solutions in mesio-distal flattened root canals. J Appl Oral Sci 2003; 11: 55-9
3 Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod 2008; 34: 1406-9
4 Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: Preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008; 41: 339-44
5 Pedullà E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E. Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2013; 39: 258-61
6 Gavini G, Caldeira CL, Akisue E, Candeiro GT, Kawakami DA. Resistance to flexural fatigue of Reciproc R25 files under continuous rotation and reciprocating movement. J Endod 2012; 38: 684-7
7 Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 2012; 38: 541-4
8 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. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 449-61
9 Yared G. Canal Preparation with Only One Reciprocating Instrument Without Prior Hand Filing: A New Concept. Available from: http://www.vdw-reciproc.de/images/stories/pdf/GY_Artikel_en_WEB.pdf [Last accessed on 2011 Dec 09]
10 Arias A, Perez-Higueras JJ, de la Macorra JC. Differences in cyclic fatigue resistance at apical and coronal levels of Reciproc and WaveOne new files. J Endod 2012; 38: 1244-8
11 Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC, Min KS. Comparison of the centering ability of Wave•One and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38: 21-5
12 Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32: 271-5
13 Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes Jr DL. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod 1997; 23: 77-85
14 Gonçalves LC, Sponchiado-Junior EC, Marques AA, Frota MF, Garcia LdaF. Morphometrical analysis of cleaning capacity of a hybrid instrumentation in mesial flattened root canals. Aust Endod J 2010; 36: 1-6
15 da Frota MF, Filho IB, Berbert FL, Sponchiado Jr EC, Marques AA, Garcia LdaF. Cleaning capacity promoted by motor-driven or manual instrumentation using ProTaper Universal system: Histological analysis. J Conserv Dent 2013; 16: 79-82
16 Paqué F, Musch U, Hülsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 8-16
17 Park SK, Kim YJ, Shon WJ, You SY, Moon YM, Kim HC. et al. Clinical efficiency and reusability of the reciprocating nickel– titanium instruments according to the root canal anatomy. Scanning 2013; 36: 246-51
18 Baratto-Filho F, Leonardi DP, Zielak JC, Vanni JR, Sayão-Maia SM, Sousa-Neto MD. Influence of ProTaper finishing files and sodium hypochlorite on cleaning and shaping of mandibuldar central incisors – A histological analysis. J Appl Oral Sci 2009; 17: 229-33
19 Taha NA, Ozawa T, Messer HH. Comparison of three techniques for preparing oval-shaped root canals. J Endod 2010; 36: 532-5
20 Pedullà E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Palermo F, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E. Cyclic fatigue resistance of two reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments after immersion in sodium hypochlorite. Int Endod J 2013; 46: 155-9
21 Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012; 37: 220-7
22 Saleh AM, Tavanafar S, Vakili-Gilani P, Al Sammerraie NJ, Rashid F. Influence of operator's experience level on lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in extracted teeth. Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38: 222-6
23 Fornari VJ, Silva-Sousa YT, Vanni JR, Pécora JD, Versiani MA, Sousa-Neto MD. Histological evaluation of the effectiveness of increased apical enlargement for cleaning the apical third of curved canals. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 988-94
24 Arvaniti IS, Khabbaz MG. Influence of root canal taper on its cleanliness: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod 2011; 37: 871-4
25 Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012; 38: 850-2