AIM: The aim of this study is to highlights possible differences in the volume of shaping and canal surface area after the using of common endodontic devices ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems. METHODS: Forty ISO 15, 0.02 taper, S-shaped endo-training Blocks (Dentsply, Maillefer) were assigned in two groups (n = 20 for each group). For each block the initial working length (WL) was evaluated with a 10 K-files (Dentsply Maillefer), so the glide path was created with PathFile 1, 2 and 3 (Dentsply Maillefer) at the WL. After that, simulated canals in the group 1 were shaped with S1, S2, F1 and F2 at WL; while in group 2 it was used single-file WaveOne primary in reciprocating motion. After shaping, the resin blocks were analysed with Skyscan 1172 scanner (Skyscan, Kontich, Belgium) and then volumetrically at a source voltage of 65 kV and a source current of 153 uA. RESULTS: No statistically differences (P > 0.05) have been found in terms of volume and surface area after the use of ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems. CONCLUSIONS: Although, results from micro-CT analysis revealed that Wave One result in a decrease of volume and surface area of shaping than ProTaper Universal, differences are not statistically significant.
AIM: The aim of this study is to highlights possible differences in the volume of shaping and canal surface area after the using of common endodontic devices ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems. METHODS: Forty ISO 15, 0.02 taper, S-shaped endo-training Blocks (Dentsply, Maillefer) were assigned in two groups (n = 20 for each group). For each block the initial working length (WL) was evaluated with a 10 K-files (Dentsply Maillefer), so the glide path was created with PathFile 1, 2 and 3 (Dentsply Maillefer) at the WL. After that, simulated canals in the group 1 were shaped with S1, S2, F1 and F2 at WL; while in group 2 it was used single-file WaveOne primary in reciprocating motion. After shaping, the resin blocks were analysed with Skyscan 1172 scanner (Skyscan, Kontich, Belgium) and then volumetrically at a source voltage of 65 kV and a source current of 153 uA. RESULTS: No statistically differences (P > 0.05) have been found in terms of volume and surface area after the use of ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems. CONCLUSIONS: Although, results from micro-CT analysis revealed that Wave One result in a decrease of volume and surface area of shaping than ProTaper Universal, differences are not statistically significant.
Authors: Mohammad H Nekoofar; Mohammad S Sheykhrezae; Naghmeh Meraji; Azad Jamee; Armin Shirvani; Javid Jamee; Paul M H Dummer Journal: J Endod Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Frederico C Martinho; Lilian F Freitas; Gustavo G Nascimento; Aleteia M Fernandes; Fabio R M Leite; Ana P M Gomes; Izabel C G Camões Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Giuseppe Troiano; Mario Dioguardi; Armando Cocco; Michele Giuliani; Cristiano Fabiani; Alfonso D'Alessandro; Domenico Ciavarella; Lorenzo Lo Muzio Journal: ScientificWorldJournal Date: 2016-12-08
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Giovanni Di Gioia; Giorgia Apollonia Caloro; Giorgia Capocasale; Khrystyna Zhurakivska; Giuseppe Troiano; Lucio Lo Russo; Lorenzo Lo Muzio Journal: Dent J (Basel) Date: 2019-05-01
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Giovanni Di Gioia; Gaetano Illuzzi; Claudia Arena; Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio; Giorgia Apollonia Caloro; Khrystyna Zhurakivska; Iolanda Adipietro; Giuseppe Troiano; Lorenzo Lo Muzio Journal: Dent J (Basel) Date: 2019-05-01
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Diego Sovereto; Gaetano Illuzzi; Enrica Laneve; Bruna Raddato; Claudia Arena; Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio; Giorgia Apollonia Caloro; Khrystyna Zhurakivska; Giuseppe Troiano; Lorenzo Lo Muzio Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2020-02-08