Comparison of reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems: the amount of removed material, total enlargement, canal transportation and curvature change

Year 2014, Volume: 31 Issue: 2, 68 - 79, 21.05.2014

Fatma Yalpı Altun Özgür Uzun

https://doi.org/10.17214/aot.94831

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the shaping ability and safety parameters for Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating system and ProTaper rotary system in simulated curved canals.

MATERIALS AND METHOD: Ninety resin blocks were divided into three groups, curvature angles were measured and preoperative digital images in the mesiodistal, buccolingual and apicocoronal directions were taken. Simulated canals were instrumented as follows: group 1: ProTaper SX-F2; group 2: Reciproc R25 and group 3: WaveOne Primary instrument. After the shaping procedure, curvature angles were re-measured and post-operative digital images of the blocks in the mesiodistal, buccolingual and apicocoronal directions were taken. The pre-operative and post-operative images were superimposed by using a software and measurements were performed on composite images.

RESULTS: ProTaper system removed more material at the inner side of the curvature, WaveOne system removed more material at the outer side of the curvature at the the mesiodistal direction, and the WaveOne system removed more material at both buccal and lingual sides at the buccolingual direction (p<0.0083; Bonferroni correction). When the total enlargement was considered, ProTaper system made greater enlargement at the mesiodistal direction and WaveOne system made greater enlargement at the buccolingual directions compared with the other systems (p<0.017; Bonferroni correction). The least amount of transportation was obtained with Reciproc system in the mesiodistal direction and with ProTaper system in the buccolingual direction (p<0.017). The change of angle of canal curvature in Reciproc group was found, significantly, to be less than in ProTaper and WaveOne groups (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION: Within the limits of the study, ProTaper and WaveOne systems were more effective regarding the amount of removed material and total enlargement, whereas Reciproc and ProTaper were safer regarding the canal transportation, and Reciproc was safer regarding the change of angle of canal curvature.

Keywords

Endodontics, Root Canal Preparation, Root Canal Therapy

Resiprokasyon ve dönme hareketi yapan eğe sistemlerinin karşılaştırılması: uzaklaştırılan madde miktarı, toplam genişletme, kanal transportasyonu ve kanal eğimi değişimi

Abstract

AMAÇ: Bu çalışmada Reciproc ve WaveOne resiprokasyon
sistemleri ile ProTaper döner sistemin eğimli yapay kanalları
şekillendirme yeteneklerinin ve güvenilirliklerinin kar-
şılaştırılması amaçlandı.
GEREÇ VE YÖNTEM: Doksan adet akrilik blok üç gruba ayrıldıktan
sonra yapay kanalların şekillendirme öncesi kanal
eğim açıları ölçüldü ve blokların meziyodistal, bukkolingual
ve apikokoronal yönde işlem öncesi dijital görüntüleri
alındı. Grup 1: ProTaper SX-F2, Grup 2: Reciproc R25, Grup
3: WaveOne Primary enstrüman sistemleri ile şekillendirildi.
Şekillendirme işleminden sonra yapay kanalların kanal
eğim açıları tekrar ölçüldü ve blokların meziyodistal, bukkolingual
ve apikokoronal yönde işlem sonrası dijital gö-
rüntüleri alındı. İşlem öncesi ve sonrasında alınan
görüntüler özel bilgisayar programları kullanılarak çakıştı-
rıldı ve elde edilen görüntüler üzerinde ölçümler yapıldı.
BULGULAR: Meziyodistal yön göz önünde bulunduruldu-
ğunda, eğimin iç kısmında ProTaper sistem, eğimin dış
kısmında WaveOne sistem; bukkolingual yön göz önünde
bulundurulduğunda, kanalın bukkal ve lingual kısmında
WaveOne sistem, daha fazla madde uzaklaştırdı (p < 0.0083;
Bonferroni düzeltmesi). Toplam genişletme bakımından
meziyodistal yön göz önünde bulundurulduğunda ProTaper
sistem, bukkolingual yön göz önünde bulunduruldu-
ğunda WaveOne sistem diğer sistemlerle göre istatistiksel
olarak anlamlı ölçüde daha fazla miktarda genişletme yaptı
(p < 0.017; Bonferroni düzeltmesi). En az miktarda kanal
transportasyonu meziyodistal yönde Reciproc sistem ile,
bukkolingual yönde ise ProTaper sistem ile elde edildi
(p < 0.017). Reciproc grubundaki kanal eğim açısı değişimi,
ProTaper ve WaveOne gruplarına göre istatistiksel olarak
anlamlı ölçüde daha azdı (p < 0.05).
SONUÇ: Bu çalışmanın sınırları dahilinde, ProTaper ve WaveOne’nin
uzaklaştırılan madde miktarı ve toplam geniş-
letme miktarı bakımından daha etkin, Reciproc ve
ProTaper’in kanal transportasyonu bakımından, Reciproc-
’un kanal eğim açısı değişimi bakımından daha güvenilir
sistemler olduğu sonucuna varıldı.

Keywords

Endodonti, kök kanal tedavisi, kök kanalını hazırlama

References

• Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32:271-5.
• Dentsplymaillefer.com [Internet]. Ballaigues Switzerland: F19 02 85.X/ 03 / 2006 [updated 2009 April; cited 2013 Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.dentsplymea.com/sites/default/files/ProTaper_Universal_Treatment_DFU_1.pdf
• Ruddle CJ. The ProTaper Technique. Endod Topics 2005;10:187-90.
• VDW-dental.com [Internet]. Munich Germany [cited 2013 Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.vdw-dental.com/en/products/reciprocatingpreparation/reciproc.html
• Tulsadentalspecialties.com [Internet]. Johnson City: Dentsply International, Inc. [updated 2010 October; cited 2013 Jan 10]. Available from: http://www.tulsadentalspecialties.com/Libraries/Tab_Content_-_Endo_Access_Shaping/WaveOne_Reciprocating_File_DFU.sflb.ashx
• Alaçam T. Kök kanallarının mekanik preparasyonları. Endodonti. Ankara: Özyurt Matbaacılık; 2012. p. 405-514.
• Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer P. Mechanical preparations of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 2005;10:30-76.
• Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004;30:559-67.
• Coleman CL, Svec TA. Analysis of Ni-Ti versus stainless steel instrumentation in resin simulated canals. J Endod 1997;23:232-5.
• Metzger Z, Basrani B, Goodis HE. Instruments, materials and devices. Cohen S, Hargreaves KM, eds. Pathways of the pulp. 10th ed. St. Louis: Mosby; 2011. p. 223-82.
• Azarpazhooh A, Fillery ED. Prion disease: the implications for dentistry. J Endod 2008;34:1158-66.
• 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.
• Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod 2006;32:61-5.
• Larsen CM, Watanabe I, Glickman GN, He J. Cyclic fatigue analysis of a new generation of nickel titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2009;35:401-3.
• Gao Y, Shotton V, Wilkinson K, Phillips G, Johnson WB. Effects of raw material and rotational speed on the cyclic fatigue of ProFile Vortex rotary instruments. J Endod 2010;36:1205-9.
• Gambarini G, Gerosa R, De Luca M, Garala M, Testarelli L. Mechanical properties of a new and improved nickel-titanium alloy for endodontic use: an evaluation of file flexibility. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008;105:798-800.
• 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.
• Yun HH, Kim SK. A comparison of the shaping abilities of 4 nickeltitanium rotary instruments in simulated root canals.Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;95:228-33.
• Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: a comparative study. J Endod 2012;38:505-9.
• 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.
• 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.
• Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012;38:850-2.
• Dietrich MA, Kirkpatrick TC, Yaccino JM. In vitro canal and isthmus debris removal of the self-adjusting file, K3, and WaveOne files in the mesial root of human mandibular molars. J Endod 2012;38:1140-4.
• Kim HC, Hwang YJ, Jung DW, You SY, Kim HC, Lee W. Micro-computed tomography and scanning electron microscopy comparisons of two nickel-titanium rotary root canal instruments used with reciprocating motion. Scanning 2013;35:112-8.
• 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.
• 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.
• Giovannone T, Migliau G, Bedini R, Ferrari M, Gallottini L. Shaping outcomes using two Ni-Ti rotary instruments in simulated canals. Minerva Stomatol 2008;57:143-54.
• Yang GB, Zheng YL, Xu WQ, Li HL, Wu HK. [Comparative study of shaping ability between rotary ProTaper and Flexofile]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;25:386-9.
• Yong W, Gao XJ. [Assessment of shaping ability of ProTaper in curved canals]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2007;25:139-41.
• Luo HX, Huang DM, Jia LH, Luo SG, Gao XJ, Tan H, et al. [Shaping ability of multi-taper nickel-titanium files in simulated resin curved root canal]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2006;24:339-42.
• Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zhang H, Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 2006;39:791-9.
• Schirrmeister JF, Strohl C, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT, Hellwig E. Shaping ability and safety of five different rotary nickel-titanium instruments compared with stainless steel hand instrumentation in simulated curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006;101:807-13.
• 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;37:229-38.
• Uzun O, Topuz O, Aydýn C, Alaçam T, Aslan B. Enlarging characteristics of four nickel-titanium rotary instrument systems under standardized conditions of operator-related variables. J Endod 2007;33:1117-20.
• Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel–titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (µCT). Int Endod J 2012;45:514-23.
• Paqué F, Zehnder M, De-Deus G. Microtomography-based comparison of reciprocating single-file F2 ProTaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod 2011;37:1394-7.
• Hilaly Eid GE, Wanees Amin SA. Changes in diameter, cross-sectional area, and extent of canal-wall touching on using 3 instrumentation techniques in long-oval canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011;112:688-95.
• Ounsi HF, Franciosi G, Paragliola R, Al-Hezaimi K, Salameh Z, Tay FR, et al. Comparison of two techniques for assessing the shaping efficacy of repeatedly used nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011;37:847-50.
• Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickel-titanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011;37:1398-401.
• Wikipedia [Internet]. Tagged image file format [cited 2013 Jan 10]; Available from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagged_Image_File_Format
• 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;36:288-95.
• You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37:1296-300.
• Dobó-Nagy C, Serbán T, Szabó J, Nagy G, Madléna M. A comparison of the shaping characteristics of two nickel-titanium endodontic hand instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35:283-8.
• Jafarzadeh H, Abbott PV. Ledge formation: review of a great challenge in endodontics. J Endod 2007;33:1155-62.
• Gorni FG, Gagliani MM. The outcome of endodontic retreatment: a 2-yr follow-up. J Endod 2004;30:1-4.
• Pak JG, White SN. Pain prevalence and severity before, during, and after root canal treatment: a systematic review. J Endod 2011;37:429-38.
• Siqueira JF Jr, Rôças IN, Favieri A, Machado AG, Gahyva SM, Oliveira JC, et al. Incidence of postoperative pain after intracanal procedures based on an antimicrobial strategy. J Endod 2002;28:457-60.
• Moore J, Fitz-Walter P, Parashos P. A micro-computed tomographic evaluation of apical root canal preparation using three instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2009;42:1057-64.