Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals

Hui Wu, Cheng Peng, Yulong Bai, Xin Hu, Lei Wang, Changyi Li, Hui Wu, Cheng Peng, Yulong Bai, Xin Hu, Lei Wang, Changyi Li

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the ProTaper Universal (PTU; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne (WO; Dentsply Maillefer) and ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer) in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals respectively.

Methods: 30 simulated L-shaped and 30 simulated S-shaped root canals in resin blocks were employed and randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 10), respectively. The canals were prepared to a tip size 25 using PTU, WO or PTN: PTU F2 (taper 0.08 over the first 3 mm from apical tip), WO Primary (taper 0.08 over the first 3 mm from apical tip), and PTN X2 (taper 0.06 over the first 3 mm from apical tip). Photos of the simulated root canals were taken pre- and postinstrumentation. The 2 layers were superimposed after a series of image processing and 10 points were selected from apical constriction with 1 mm interval. And then the central axis transportation and straightened curvature were measured with software of image analysis.

Results: In simulated L-shaped root canals, PTU and PTN caused less transportation than WO at curved section (P < 0.05), and PTN caused the least transportation at apical constriction (P < 0.05). Moreover, PTN maintained the canal curvature best among the 3 groups (P < 0.05). But PTN produced more transportation at straight section compared with PTU and WO (P < 0.05). In simulated S-shaped root canals, PTN preserved the coronal curvature best (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in apical curvature since all the files straightened the curvature obviously.

Conclusions: PTN showed a better shaping ability than PTU and WO at the curved section of root canals, and PTN maintained the best apical constriction. But all the files had a tendency to straighten the apical curvature in multi-curved canals.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Image processing of L-shaped canal. (Stage 1A) the photograph was desaturated before instrumentation; (Stage 1B) the photograph was desaturated after instrumentation; (Stage 2A) the image was converted into vector one before instrumentation; (Stage 2B) the image was converted into vector one after instrumentation; (Stage 3) images pre- and postinstrumentation were superimposed into one after acquiring their central axis; (Stage 4) measuring the distance of central axis pre- and postinstrumentation. The green line, red line and white line represented the central axis of original root canal, the central axis of enlarged root canal, and the outline of root canal respectively.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Image processing of S-shaped canal. (Stage 1A) the photograph was desaturated before instrumentation; (Stage 1B) the photograph was desaturated after instrumentation; (Stage 2A) the image was converted into vector one before instrumentation; (Stage 2B) the image was converted into vector one after instrumentation; (Stage 3) images pre- and postinstrumentation were superimposed into one after acquiring their central axis; (Stage 4) measuring the distance of central axis pre- and postinstrumentation. The green line, red line and white line represented the central axis of original root canal, the central axis of enlarged root canal, and the outline of root canal respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Mean transportation of central axis after instrumentation in L-shaped root canals. The vertical axis represented the average distance from central axis of original canals, defined that the left side of original central axis was negative and the right was positive.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Mean transportation of central axis after instrumentation in S-shaped root canals. The vertical axis represented the average distance from central axis of original canals, defined that the left side of original central axis was negative and the right was positive.

References

    1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974;18(2):269–96.
    1. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PMH. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005;10(1):30–76. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x.
    1. Yin LY, Xie XL, Chen MM, Liu LH, Ling TY. [Experimental study of preparing curved root canals with different instrument] Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008;26(6):660–3.
    1. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Effect of canal length and curvature on working length alteration with WaveOne reciprocating files. J Endod. 2011;37(12):1687–90. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.09.014.
    1. Elnaghy AM. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J. 2014;47:1034–9. doi: 10.1111/iej.12244.
    1. Lim KC, Webber J. The validity of simulated root canals for the investigation of the prepared root canal shape. Int Endod J. 1985;18(4):240–6. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1985.tb00450.x.
    1. Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H, Ertas ET. Comparative study of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Endod. 2014;40(6):852–6. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.010.
    1. Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod. 2012;37(4):220–7. doi: 10.5395/rde.2012.37.4.220.
    1. Burroughs JR, Bergeron BE, Roberts MD, Hagan JL, Himel VT. Shaping ability of three nickel-titanium endodontic file systems in simulated S-shaped root canals. J Endod. 2012;38(12):1618–21. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.09.011.
    1. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32(2):271–5. doi: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1.
    1. Cunningham CJ, Senia ES. A three-dimensional study of canal curvatures in the mesial roots of mandibular molars. J Endod. 1992;18(6):294–300. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80957-X.
    1. Nagy CD, Szabo J, Szabo J. A mathematically based classification of root canal curvatures on natural human teeth. J Endod. 1995;21(11):557–60. doi: 10.1016/S0099-2399(06)80985-4.
    1. Shen Y, Zhou HM, Zheng YF, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2013;39(2):163–72. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.005.
    1. Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, Schricker SR, Nusstein JM, Li UM, et al. Micro-XRD and temperature-modulated DSC investigation of nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments. Dent Mater. 2009;25(10):1221–9. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2009.04.010.
    1. Pereira ES, Gomes RO, Leroy AM, Singh R, Peters OA, Bahia MG, et al. Mechanical behavior of M-Wire and conventional NiTi wire used to manufacture rotary endodontic instruments. Dent Mater. 2013;29(12):e318–24. doi: 10.1016/j.dental.2013.10.004.
    1. Chesler MB, Tordik PA, Imamura GM, Goodell GG. Intramanufacturer diameter and taper variability of rotary instruments and their corresponding Gutta-percha cones. J Endod. 2013;39(4):538–41. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.12.029.
    1. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 2: cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2004;37(4):239–48. doi: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00783.x.
    1. Gergi R, Abou RJ, Osta N, Sader J, Naaman A. Taper preparation variability compared to current taper standards using computed tomography. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:265695. doi: 10.1155/2012/265695.
    1. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Beullens M, Wevers M, Van Meerbeek B, Lambrechts P. Progressive versus constant tapered shaft design using NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2003;36(4):288–95. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00650.x.
    1. Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H. Comparison of single cone obturation performance of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems. Acta Odontol Scand. 2014;72(7):537–42. doi: 10.3109/00016357.2013.876554.
    1. Ha J, Cheung G, Versluis A, Lee C, Kwak S, Kim H. ‘Screw-in’ tendency of rotary nickel-titanium files due to design geometry. Int Endod J. 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
    1. Versluis A, Kim HC, Lee W, Kim BM, Lee CJ. Flexural stiffness and stresses in nickel-titanium rotary files for various pitch and cross-sectional geometries. J Endod. 2012;38(10):1399–403. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.06.008.
    1. Schäfer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2004;37(4):229–38. doi: 10.1111/j.0143-2885.2004.00786.x.
    1. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer 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(5):449–61. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x.
    1. Giuliani V, Di Nasso L, Pace R, Pagavino G. Shaping ability of WaveOne primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system used in continuous and reciprocating motion. J Endod. 2014;40(9):1468–71. doi: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.024.

Source: PubMed

赞助者和合作者

医疗条件

药物干预

3
订阅