Author/Authors
Altun, Fatma Yalpı Merzifon Kara Mustafa Paşa Devlet Hastanesi, Turkey , Uzun, Özgür Gazi Üniversitesi - Dis Hekimligi Fakültesi - Endodonti Anabilim Dali, Turkey
Title Of Article
Comparison of reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems: the amount of removed material, total enlargement, canal transportation and curvature change
شماره ركورد
26696
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the shaping ability and safety parameters for Reciproc andWaveOne 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.
From Page
68
NaturalLanguageKeyword
Endodontics , root canal preparation , root canal therapy
JournalTitle
Acta Odontologica Turcica
To Page
79
JournalTitle
Acta Odontologica Turcica
Link To Document