The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 24 , ISSUE 10 ( October, 2023 ) > List of Articles

ORIGINAL RESEARCH

Evaluation of Canal-centering Ability and Apical Transportation of Hyflex-EDM, OneShape, WaveOne Gold, and Reciproc Files: An Ex Vivo Study

Anbarasu Subramanian, Ramaprabha Balasubramanian, Srilekha Jayakumar, Shalini Harikrishnan, Raja Chandrasekaran

Keywords : Apical transportation, Canal-centering ability, Cone-beam computed tomography, Dentinal cracks

Citation Information : Subramanian A, Balasubramanian R, Jayakumar S, Harikrishnan S, Chandrasekaran R. Evaluation of Canal-centering Ability and Apical Transportation of Hyflex-EDM, OneShape, WaveOne Gold, and Reciproc Files: An Ex Vivo Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2023; 24 (10):802-808.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3571

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 05-12-2023

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2023; The Author(s).


Abstract

Aim: To evaluate and compare canal-centering ability (CCA), canal transportation (CT), and dentinal crack formation by using Hyflex-electrical discharge machining (EDM), OneShape, WaveOne Gold, and Reciproc single file system in the mesiobuccal root of maxillary first molar at coronal, middle, and apical third using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and methods: Mesiobuccal roots of 120 freshly extracted maxillary molar teeth were divided into four experimental groups; Hyflex-EDM, OneShape, WaveOne Gold, and Reciproc (n = 30/group). Preinstrumentation scanning was done using CBCT for all samples at coronal one-third (4 mm), middle one-third (8 mm), and apical one-third (12 mm). After cleaning and shaping with standard irrigation protocol, the specimens were again scanned. Canal-centering ability and CT were calculated using pre- and postinstrumentation CBCT values. A scanning electron microscope was used to identify dentinal crack formation. Results: No significant difference was found for CCA by any of the systems at coronal, middle, and apical third, respectively. However, OneShape was found to have better CCA at the coronal third and WaveOne Gold at the middle and apical third. There was a significant difference in canal transportation at the apical third (p = 0.004) with WaveOne Gold having the least CT followed by Reciproc at the apical third. OneShape resulted in more dentinal cracks in the coronal and middle thirds. Also, Hyflex-EDM was better in the apical third. Conclusion: No difference in CCA was observed between the groups. The lowest values for CT were obtained for WaveOne Gold (similar to Reciproc) whereas both rotary files showed higher values for CT. Also, OneShape showed the most dentinal at all levels. Furthermore, Hyflex-EDM and WaveOne Gold produced the least dentinal cracks at all levels. Clinical significance: Given that the Reciprocating file system had the least CT and least dentinal cracks, the clinical success rate of root canal treatment (RCT) with the Reciprocating file system can be a better choice to improve the longevity of root canal-treated teeth.


HTML PDF Share
  1. Schafer AE, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel–titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexo file. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2003;36(3):199–207. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00643.x.
  2. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997;23(8):503–507. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80310-X.
  3. Dhingra A, Kochar R, Banerjee S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with OneShape rotary and WaveOne reciprocating files. J Conserv Dent 2014;17(2):138–141. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128049.
  4. Karataş E, Gündüz HA, Kırıcı DÖ, et al. Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, and WaveOne instruments. J Endod 2015;41(2):261–264. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.10.019.
  5. Ashwinkumar V, Krithikadatta J, Surendran S, et al. Effect of reciprocating file motion on microcrack formation in root canals: An SEM study. Int Endod J 2014;47(7):622–627. DOI: 10.1111/iej. 12197.
  6. Capar ID, Ertas HE, Evren OK, et al. Comparative study of different novel nickel–titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Endod 2014;40(6):852–856. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.010.
  7. Shemesh H, Lindtner T, Portoles CA, et al. Dehydration induces cracking in root dentin irrespective of instrumentation: A two-dimensional and three-dimensional study. J Endod 2018;44(1):120–125. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.07.025
  8. Hoppe CB, Botcher DE, Justo AM, et al. Comparison of curved root canals preparation using reciprocating, continuous and an association of motions. Scanning 2016;38(5):462–468. DOI: 10.1002/sca.21297.
  9. Pedullà E, Lo Savio F, Boninelli S, et al. Torsional and cyclic fatigue resistance of a new nickel–titanium instrument manufactured by electrical discharge machining. J Endod 2016;42(1):156–159. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2015.10.004.
  10. Hartmann MSM, Barletta FB, Fontanella VRC, et al. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: A comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007;33(8):962–965. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.03.019.
  11. Sarthaj AS, Johnson P, Samuel A, et al. Evaluation of various kinematics in WaveOne Gold reciprocating file system An in vitro study. Endodontology 2020;32 (2):100–103. DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_18_19.
  12. Kapadwala MI, Asthana G, Parmar GJ. Cone–beam computed tomography analysis of canal transportation and centering ratio of fifth-generation nickel–titanium rotary file systems in curved root canals. Endodontology 2019;31(2):138–143. DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_36_19.
  13. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32(2):271–275. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1.
  14. Ludlow JB, Davies–Ludlow LE, Brooks SL, et al. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dento maxillofac Radiol 2006;35(4):219–226. DOI: 10.1259/dmfr/14340323.
  15. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel–titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22(7):369–375. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80221-4.
  16. Bürklein S, Jäger PG, Schäfer E. Apical transportation and canal straightening with different continuously tapered rotary file systems in severely curved root canals: F6 SkyTaper and OneShape vs Mtwo. Int Endod J 2017;50(10):983–990. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12716.
  17. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, et al. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012;45(5):449–461. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.x.
  18. Jain A, Asrani H, Singhal AC, et al. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between WaveOne and ProTaper rotary by using cone–beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2016;19(5):440–444. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.190024.
  19. Sunildath MS, Mathew J, George L, et al. Canal transportation and centering ability of root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems with and without PathFiles in cone–beam computed tomography-based three-dimensional molar prototypes. J Conserv Dent 2021;24(3):246–251. DOI: 10.4103/jcd.jcd_200_21.
  20. Arias A, Perez–Higueras JJ, de la Macorra JC. Differences in cyclic fatigue resistance at apical and coronal levels of Reciproc and WaveOne new files. J Endod 2012;38(9):1244–1248. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.05.022.
  21. Dhingra A, Ruhal N, Miglani A. Evaluation of single file systems Reciproc, OneShape, and WaveOne using cone–beam computed tomography: An In Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(4):30–34. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12112.5803.
  22. Goldberg M, Dahan S, Machtou P. Centering ability and influence of experience when using WaveOne single-file technique in simulated canals. Int Endod J 2012;2012:206321. DOI: 10.1155/2012/206321.
  23. Ozyurek T, Yılmaz K, Uslu G. Shaping ability of Reciproc, WaveOne Gold, and HyFlex-EDM single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2017;43(5):805–809. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016. 12.010.
  24. Jain A, Gupta AS, Agrawal R. Comparative analysis of canal-centering ratio, apical transportation, and remaining dentin thickness between single-file systems, i.e., OneShape and WaveOne reciprocation: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2018;21(6):637–641. DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_101_18.
  25. Carvalho MS, Sponchiado EC Junior, Garrido ADB, et al. Histological evaluation of the cleaning effectiveness of two reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved root canals: Reciproc versus WaveOne. Eur J Dent 2015;9(1):80–86. DOI: 10.4103/1305-7456.149648.
  26. Jamleh A, Komabayashi T, Ebihara A, et al. Root surface strain during canal shaping and its influence on apical microcrack development: a preliminary investigation. Int Endod J 2015;48(12):1103-1111. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12406.
  27. Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, et al. The incidence of root microcracks caused by 3 different single-file systems versus the ProTaper system. J Endod 2013;39(8):1054–1056. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.013.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.