Shaping Ability of 4 Different Single-file Systems in Simulated S-shaped Canals

Abstract Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. Methods Sixty-four S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size of 25 using Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer,...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of endodontics 2015-04, Vol.41 (4), p.548-552
Hauptverfasser: Saleh, Abdulrahman Mohammed, PhD, Vakili Gilani, Pouyan, DDS, Tavanafar, Saeid, DDS, Schäfer, Edgar, PhD
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Abstract Introduction The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. Methods Sixty-four S-shaped canals in resin blocks were prepared to an apical size of 25 using Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), OneShape (Micro Méga, Besançon, France), and F360 (Komet Brasseler, Lemgo, Germany) ( n  = 16 canals/group) systems. Composite images were made from the superimposition of pre- and postinstrumentation images. The amount of resin removed by each system was measured by using a digital template and image analysis software. Canal aberrations and the preparation time were also recorded. The data were statistically analyzed by using analysis of variance, Tukey, and chi-square tests. Results Canals prepared with the F360 and OneShape systems were better centered compared with the Reciproc and WaveOne systems. Reciproc and WaveOne files removed significantly greater amounts of resin from the inner side of both curvatures ( P  
ISSN:0099-2399
1878-3554
DOI:10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.019