Centering Ability of ProTaper Next and WaveOne Classic in J-Shape Simulated Root Canals

Introduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shaping and centering ability of ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and WaveOne Classic systems (Dentsply Maillefer) in simulated root canals. Methods. Forty J-shaped canals in resin blocks were assigne...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:TheScientificWorld 2016, Vol.2016 (2016), p.1-5
Hauptverfasser: Lo Muzio, Lorenzo, D’Alessandro, Alfonso, Fabiani, Cristiano, Giuliani, Michele, Cocco, Armando, Dioguardi, Mario, Troiano, Giuseppe, Ciavarella, Domenico
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Introduction. The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shaping and centering ability of ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and WaveOne Classic systems (Dentsply Maillefer) in simulated root canals. Methods. Forty J-shaped canals in resin blocks were assigned to two groups (n=20 for each group). Photographic method was used to record pre- and postinstrumentation images. After superimposition, centering and shaping ability were recorded at 9 different levels from the apex using the software Autocad 2013 (Autodesk Inc., San Rafael, USA). Results. Shaping procedures with ProTaper Next resulted in a lower amount of resin removed at each reference point level. In addition, the pattern of centering ability improved after the use of ProTaper Next in 8 of 9 measurement points. Conclusions. Within the limitations of this study, shaping procedures with ProTaper Next instruments demonstrated a lower amount of resin removed and a better centering ability than WaveOne Classic system.
ISSN:2356-6140
1537-744X
1537-744X
DOI:10.1155/2016/1606013