Comparative Study of Shaping Ability between ProTaper Next and WaveOne

doi:10.13701/j.cnki.kqyxyj.2016.09.008

Abstract

Abstract: Objective: To compare the shaping ability of ProTaper Next and WaveOne in simulated resin root canals. Methods: Forty standard simulated resin root canals were randomly assigned to two groups, one group for ProTaper Next and the other group for WaveOne with crown-down techniques. After preparation, the change of root canal arch radius and curvature and the amount of resin removed at the inner and outer canal wall at different measuring points were measured with Image Pro Plus 5.0. The total amount of resin removed was also assessed. At the same time, change of working length and instruments failure were recorded. Results: Both instrument systems could well maintain the working length and original root canal shape. However, the canals prepared with WaveOne showed higher transportation at the apical part. Conclusion: Compared with WaveOne, ProTaper Next showed better shaping ability, especially in the apical part of severely curved canals.

Key words: ProTaper Next, WaveOne, Curved root canal, Shapingability

CLC Number:

R781.05

ZHAN Yun-yan, YANG Guo-bin. Comparative Study of Shaping Ability between ProTaper Next and WaveOne[J]. Journal of Oral Science Research, 2016, 32(9): 925-928.

References

[1] Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zhang H, et al . Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals [J]. Int Endod J, 2006, 39(10)∶791-799
[2] Schfer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals [J]. Int Endod J, 2003, 36(3)∶199-207
[3] Burroughs JR, Bergeron BE, Roberts MD, et al. Shaping ability of three nickel-titanium endodontic file systems in simulated S-shaped root canals [J]. J Endod, 2012, 38(12)∶1618-1621
[4] Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z,et al. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use [J]. J Endod, 2006, 32(1)∶61-65
[5] Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals [J]. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol, 1971, 32(2)∶271-275
[6] Pruett JP, ClementDJ,CarnesDL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments [J]. J Endod, 1997, 23(2)∶77-85
[7] Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, et al . Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography [J]. J Endod, 2010, 36(5)∶904-907
[8] Tasdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, et al .Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography [J]. Int Endod J, 2005, 38(6)∶402-408
[9] 杨国斌,郑玉露,许为群,等.机用PtoTaper锉和Flexofile不锈钢锉根管成形能力的对比研究[J].华西口腔医学杂志,2007,25(4)∶386-389
[10] Kum KY, Spngberg L, Cha BY,et al . Shaping ability of three ProFile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals [J]. J Endod, 2000, 26(12)∶719-723
[11] Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations [J]. Int Endod J, 2008, 41(4)∶339-344
[12] Elnaghy AM. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files [J]. Int Endod J, 2014, 47(11)∶1034-1039
[13] Wu H, Peng C, Bai Y,et al . Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals [J]. BMC Oral Health, 2015, 15(1)∶27-30