Shaping ability of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated L-shaped canals: OneShape, Hero Shaper, and Revo-S.

BACKGROUND: Shaping ability of a file plays an important role during instrumentation in an endodontic treatment. This study aimed to compare the shaping ability of OneShape (OS), Hero Shaper (HS), and Revo-S (RS) instruments in simulated L-shaped canals. METHODS: Forty-eight simulated L-shaped canals were prepared to an apical size of 25 using OS, HS, and RS (all from Micro-Mega SA, Besançon, France), (n = 16 canals/group) systems. The amount of resin removed after each canal's preparation was measured and compared after producing a composite image made from the superimposition of pre and post-instrumented canals. Canal aberrations and the preparation time were also recorded. The data were statistically analysed by using ANOVA, Tukey, and Chi-square tests. RESULTS: One file fractured during instrumentation in the RS group. A significant difference was found at the apical end of the prepared simulated canal between the groups, with RS showing the least amount of resin removal from the inner side of the canals and HS showing the highest amount of resin removal from the outer side (P < 0.05). Regarding the total width of the canals after preparation, a significant difference was found between the groups at the apical end and the straight portion of the canals, and RS removed the least amount of resin at the straight portion of the canals (P < 0.05). No statistically significant differences were found between the different instruments regarding canal aberrations' incidence (P > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: All of the files showed a tendency to straighten the canals, whereas OS files maintained the original canal curvatures well.

Shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals.

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 < .05). Instrumentation with OneShape and Reciproc files was significantly faster compared with WaveOne and F360 files (P < .05). No instrument fractured during canal preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, all single-file instruments were safe to use and were able to prepare the canals efficiently. However, single-file systems that are less tapered seem to be more favorable when preparing S-shaped canals.

Influence of operator's experience level on lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in extracted teeth.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the influence of operator experience level on the lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) in extracted teeth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Moderately curved canals of extracted maxillary and mandibular molars were randomly distributed into 2 groups: experienced and inexperienced operators. Ten files were allocated to each group (n = 10). Each canal was prepared until the working length was reached, and the same file was used to prepare additional canals until it separated. The number of canals prepared before file separation was recorded. The fragment length of each file was measured, and the location of the fragment in the canal was determined. Data were statistically analysed using the independent 2-sample t-test. RESULTS: The 2 operators prepared a total of 324 moderately curved canals of maxillary and mandibular molars. There was no significant intergroup difference in the mean number of canals prepared (p = 0.27). The average lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file was 17.1 and 15.3 canals, and the longest lifespan was 25 and 20 canals, when used by experienced and inexperienced operators, respectively. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in separated fragment length and location. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of this study, operator experience level appears to have no effect on the lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in preparation of moderately curved canals. Single teeth with multiple canals can be prepared safely even by a novice operator by using a single file.