Sebastian Bürklein1, Thomas Poschmann1, Edgar Schäfer2. 1. Central Interdisciplinary Ambulance in the School of Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. 2. Central Interdisciplinary Ambulance in the School of Dentistry, University of Münster, Münster, Germany. Electronic address: eschaef@uni-muenster.de.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the shaping ability of different rotary and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems with and without previous glide path preparation in simulated S-shaped canals. METHODS: One hundred twenty S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size 25 by using Reciproc, WaveOne, HyflexCM, F360, and OneShape systems either with or without previous glide path preparation (Pathfile) (12 canals/group). Material removal was measured at 20 measuring points, beginning 1 mm from the end point of preparation. Incidence of canal aberrations (zip/elbow, ledge formation), preparation time, and instrument failures were also recorded. Statistical analyses were performed by using analysis of variance and Tukey and χ(2) tests. RESULTS: For all systems, glide path preparation exerted no significant effect on preparation times (P > .05). Glide path preparation had no influence on the incidence of canal aberrations and instrument fractures (P > .05), with no significant differences between the 5 systems (P > .05). Glide path preparation had no influence on the centering ability of all systems (P > .05). On average, canals prepared with F360, OneShape, and HyflexCM remained better centered compared with those enlarged with WaveOne and Reciproc. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, glide path preparation had no significant impact on canal straightening. Less tapered instruments maintained the original canal curvature better than instruments having greater tapers.
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to compare the shaping ability of different rotary and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems with and without previous glide path preparation in simulated S-shaped canals. METHODS: One hundred twenty S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size 25 by using Reciproc, WaveOne, HyflexCM, F360, and OneShape systems either with or without previous glide path preparation (Pathfile) (12 canals/group). Material removal was measured at 20 measuring points, beginning 1 mm from the end point of preparation. Incidence of canal aberrations (zip/elbow, ledge formation), preparation time, and instrument failures were also recorded. Statistical analyses were performed by using analysis of variance and Tukey and χ(2) tests. RESULTS: For all systems, glide path preparation exerted no significant effect on preparation times (P > .05). Glide path preparation had no influence on the incidence of canal aberrations and instrument fractures (P > .05), with no significant differences between the 5 systems (P > .05). Glide path preparation had no influence on the centering ability of all systems (P > .05). On average, canals prepared with F360, OneShape, and HyflexCM remained better centered compared with those enlarged with WaveOne and Reciproc. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, glide path preparation had no significant impact on canal straightening. Less tapered instruments maintained the original canal curvature better than instruments having greater tapers.
Authors: Marcelo Santos Coelho; Carlos Eduardo Fontana; Augusto Shoji Kato; Alexandre Sigrist de Martin; Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Bueno Journal: Iran Endod J Date: 2015-12-24