INTRODUCTION: Reciprocating instruments were developed to improve and simplify the preparation of the root canal system by allowing greater centralization of the canal and requiring a shorter learning curve. Despite the risk of instrument separation, using a reciprocating instrument in more than 1 case is a relatively common clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of Reciproc (R25; VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne (Primary; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) instruments according to the number of uses during the preparation of root canals in up to 3 posterior teeth. METHODS: A prospective clinical study was conducted by 3 experienced specialists who performed treatment of 358 posterior teeth (1130 canals) over a period of 12 months using 120 reciprocating instruments, 60 of which were Reciproc R25 and 60 were WaveOne Primary. The motion used during instrumentation followed the recommendations of the respective manufacturers. After each use, the instruments were observed under a dental operating microscope at 8× magnification. In the case of fracture or deformation, the instrument was discarded. RESULTS: None of the instruments showed any signs of deformation, but 3 instruments fractured (0.26% of the number of canals and 0.84% of the number of teeth). All fractures occurred in mandibular molars (1 WaveOne Primary file during the third use and 2 Reciproc R25 files, 1 during the first use and the other during the third use). CONCLUSIONS: There was a low incidence of fracture when reciprocating files were used in up to 3 cases of endodontic treatment in posterior teeth.
INTRODUCTION: Reciprocating instruments were developed to improve and simplify the preparation of the root canal system by allowing greater centralization of the canal and requiring a shorter learning curve. Despite the risk of instrument separation, using a reciprocating instrument in more than 1 case is a relatively common clinical practice. The aim of this study was to evaluate the fracture resistance of Reciproc (R25; VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne (Primary; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) instruments according to the number of uses during the preparation of root canals in up to 3 posterior teeth. METHODS: A prospective clinical study was conducted by 3 experienced specialists who performed treatment of 358 posterior teeth (1130 canals) over a period of 12 months using 120 reciprocating instruments, 60 of which were Reciproc R25 and 60 were WaveOne Primary. The motion used during instrumentation followed the recommendations of the respective manufacturers. After each use, the instruments were observed under a dental operating microscope at 8× magnification. In the case of fracture or deformation, the instrument was discarded. RESULTS: None of the instruments showed any signs of deformation, but 3 instruments fractured (0.26% of the number of canals and 0.84% of the number of teeth). All fractures occurred in mandibular molars (1 WaveOne Primary file during the third use and 2 Reciproc R25 files, 1 during the first use and the other during the third use). CONCLUSIONS: There was a low incidence of fracture when reciprocating files were used in up to 3 cases of endodontic treatment in posterior teeth.
Authors: Marco Antonio Z Loureiro; Giampiero Rossi-Fedele; Octavio G Amezcua; Paulo O Carmo Souza; Julio A Silva; Carlos Estrela; Daniel A Decurcio Journal: J Conserv Dent Date: 2020-11-05