Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of S-One and WaveOne File Systems Using Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis: An In Vitro Study
Sai S Ramachandran, Chinnu R Koshy, Shankar Narayanan, Balakrishnan Venkatesh, Rajasekaran M Sundaran, Chellaswamy S Karumaran
Citation Information :
Ramachandran SS, Koshy CR, Narayanan S, Venkatesh B, Sundaran RM, Karumaran CS. Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of S-One and WaveOne File Systems Using Scanning Electron Microscopy Analysis: An In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2020; 21 (8):841-845.
Aim: The aim of this study is to compare the canal cleaning ability of S-One file (AF BLUE) system with WaveOne Gold single file system, using scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Materials and methods: In the present study, 40 freshly extracted permanent mandibular premolars with a single-root canal and straight roots were selected. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups. The canals were prepared by crown-down technique. Buccolingual sectioning of the samples were done followed by SEM evaluation. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal–Wallis test. The statistical significance level was set at p value <0.05. Results: The analysis of the results demonstrated that WaveOne presented higher cleaning capacity of root canals with a statistically significant difference, when compared to S-One file system (p value < 0.05). Both the file systems showed significant cleaning efficacy in the coronal and middle-thirds of the root canals when compared to the apical thirds. Also, the WaveOne showed better results than S-One (AF BLUE), and the results were statistically significant. Conclusion: With the limitation of the study, the cleaning ability of rotary file system is high in coronal and middle-third followed by apical third. In this study, the WaveOne showed better results than S-One (AF BLUE), and the results were statistically significant. Clinical significance: The aggressive cutting of dentin during canal preparation is less in WaveOne file than S-One file system. The cleaning efficiency is good in reciprocating file system (WaveOne) than continuous rotary file system (S-One).
Cohen S, Burns R. Pathways of the pulp 4th ed., St Louis: CV Mosby Co; 1987. pp. 640-–684.
Luiten DJ, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC, et al. A comparison of four instrumentation techniques on apical canal transportation. J Endodon 1995;21(1):26–32. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(06)80553-4.
Civjan S, Huget EF, DeSimon LB. Potential applications of certain nickel-titanium (nitinol) alloys. J Dent Res 1975;54(1):89–96. DOI: 10.1177/00220345750540014301.
Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endodon 1988;14(7):346–351. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(88)80196-1.
Thompson SA, Dummer PMH. Shaping ability of ProFile .04 taper series 29 rotary nickel–titanium instruments in simulated canals. Part 1. Int Endod J 1997;30(1):1–7. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.1997.tb01093.x.
Park SY, Cheung GSP, Yum J, et al. Dynamic torsional resistance of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2010;36(7):1200–1204. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2010.02.016.
Lopes HP, Gambarra-Soares T, Elias CN, et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of rotary instruments made of conventional nickel-titanium wire, M-wire, or nickel-titanium alloy in R-phase. J Endod 2013;39(4):516–520. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.12.006.
Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper next instruments with and without glide path. J Endod 2014;40(12):2053–2056. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.001.
Shen Y, Zhou H, Zheng Y, et al. Metallurgical characterization of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011;37(11):1566–1571. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.08.005.
Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H, 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.
Schafer 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. Int Endod J 2003;36(3):199–207. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00643.x.
De-Deus G, Moreira EJL, Lopes HP, et al. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010;43(12):1063–1068. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2010.01756.x.
Webber J, Machtou P, et al. The WaveOne single-file reciprocating system. Roots 2011;1:28–33.
Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single- file reciprocating system. Roots 2015;1:34–40.
Hulsmann M, Herbs U, Schafers F. Comparative study of root canal preparation using light speed and quantec SC rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2003;36(11):748–756. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00725.x.
Versumer J, Hulsmann M, Schafers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation using Profile. 04 and light speed rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35(1):37–46. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00454.x.
Moghaddam KN, Mehran M, Zadeh HF. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Int Endod J 2009;4(2):53–57.
Sonntag D, Peters OA. Effect of prion decontamination protocols on nickel-titanium rotary surfaces. J Endod 2007;33(4):442–446. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.12.012.
You SY, et al. Efficiency of reciprocating preparation in curved root canals. J Endod 2010;36:584.
Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, et al. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod 2008;34(11):1406–1409. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2008.07.029.
Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012;38(1):101–104. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011. 09.030.
Malentacca A, Lalli F. Use of nicakel titanium instruments with reciprocating movement. Italian Journal of Endodontics 2002;6: 79–84.
Dhingra A, Gupta R, Singh A. Comparison of centric ability of porter next, wave one & protaper using cone beam computed tomography. Endodontics 2014;26:244–251.
Usman N, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Influence of instrument size on root canal debridement. J Endod 2004;30(2):110–112. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200402000-00012.
Mayer BE, Peters OA, Barbakow F. Effects of rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J 2002;35(7):582–589. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2002.00502.x.
Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lid PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endodon 1975;1(8):255–262. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(75)80037-9.
Walton RE. Histologic evaluation of different methods of enlarging the pulp canal space. J Endodon 1976;2(10):304–311. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(76)80045-3.
Mizrahi SJ, Tucker JW, Seltzer S. A scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various endodontic instruments. J Endodon 1975;1(10):324–333. DOI: 10.1016/s0099-2399(75)80012-4.
Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg 1971;32(2):271–275. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1.
Southard DW, Oswald RJ, Natkin E. Instrumentation of curved molar root canals with the Roane technique. J Endodon 1967;13(10): 479–489. DOI: 10.1016/S0099-2399(87)80015-8.
Bechelli C, Zecchi Orlandini S, Colafranceschi M. Scanning electron microscope study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus Lightspeed instrumentation. Int Endod J 1999;32(6): 484–493. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00250.x.