Seyed Mohsen Hasheminia1, Alireza Farhad2, Mahnaz Sheikhi3, Parisa Soltani4, Seyedeh Sareh Hendi5, Masoumeh Ahmadi6. 1. Dental Materials Research Center, Department of Endodontics, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran. 2. Dental Research Center, Department of Endodontics, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran. 3. Dental Research Center, Department of Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran. 4. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran. 5. Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Hamadan University of Medical Science, Hamadan, Iran. 6. Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Isfahan University of Medical Science, Isfahan, Iran. Electronic address: nasimahmadi1986@yahoo.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare canal transportation and the centering ability of Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and EdgeFile (EdgeEndo, Albuquerque, NM) rotary systems using cone-beam computed tomographic imaging. METHODS: Ninety mesiobuccal mandibular first molar uncalcified canals with at least a 19-mm length, a canal curvature of 15°-30° (the Schneider method), and a mature apex were selected. Canals were randomly divided into 3 groups of 30 teeth, and canal preparation with the Reciproc, WaveOne, and EdgeFile systems was performed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Cone-beam computed tomographic images were taken before and after instrumentation in the same position. Apical transportation was calculated in the distances of 2, 3, and 4 mm from the apex. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to statistically analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean canal transportation was significantly lower with EdgeFile (P < .001) followed by the WaveOne rotary system. Moreover, the centering ability of the EdgeFile system was higher than that of the WaveOne and Reciproc systems. CONCLUSIONS: The EdgeFile rotary system showed the lowest transportation in both the mesiodistal and buccolingual directions and the highest centering ability. The Reciproc system showed the highest transportation and the lowest centering ability.
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare canal transportation and the centering ability of Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and EdgeFile (EdgeEndo, Albuquerque, NM) rotary systems using cone-beam computed tomographic imaging. METHODS: Ninety mesiobuccal mandibular first molar uncalcified canals with at least a 19-mm length, a canal curvature of 15°-30° (the Schneider method), and a mature apex were selected. Canals were randomly divided into 3 groups of 30 teeth, and canal preparation with the Reciproc, WaveOne, and EdgeFile systems was performed according to the manufacturers' instructions. Cone-beam computed tomographic images were taken before and after instrumentation in the same position. Apical transportation was calculated in the distances of 2, 3, and 4 mm from the apex. Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests were used to statistically analyze the data. RESULTS: The mean canal transportation was significantly lower with EdgeFile (P < .001) followed by the WaveOne rotary system. Moreover, the centering ability of the EdgeFile system was higher than that of the WaveOne and Reciproc systems. CONCLUSIONS: The EdgeFile rotary system showed the lowest transportation in both the mesiodistal and buccolingual directions and the highest centering ability. The Reciproc system showed the highest transportation and the lowest centering ability.
Authors: Yasmine Ahmed Mortada Abd El Fatah; Nagwa Mohamed Ali Khattab; Yasser Fathi Gomaa; Ahmad Abdel Hamid Elheeny Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 3.747