Cutting efficiency of ProDesign R, Reciproc Blue and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v10i3.13028Keywords:
Dental pulp cavity; Endodontics; Root canal.Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate, in vitro, the cutting efficiency and time spent for instrumentation of three different heat-treated reciprocating systems in simulated straight canals. Forty-five acrylic blocks with a straight simulated root canal with 21 millimeters in length were initially weighed (P1). After weighing the blocks were divided into three groups (n = 15) and each group prepared with the following systems: ProDesign R 25.06 (Bassi/Easy, Belo Horizonte, Brazil), Reciproc Blue25.08 (VDW, Munich, Germany) and Wave one Gold (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The time spent for the total preparation of each block was recorded. After instrumentation, they were subjected to final weighing (P2). The difference between P1 and P2 determined the amount of material removed (cutting efficiency) by each mechanized system. The statistical analysis was performed by the ANOVA test of each of the variables, for multiple comparisons of means the turkey test was used. As for preparation time, it can be seen that ProDesign R showed a longer preparation time (P <0.5) compared to Reciproc Blue and Wave one Gold. Regarding cutting efficiency, there was no statistical difference between the groups (P> 0.5). In straight simulated canals, the type of reciprocating instrument influences the time for instrumentation; however, it shows similar cutting efficiency.
References
Adiguzel, M., & Tufenkci, P. (2018). Comparison of the ability of Reciproc and Reciproc Blue instruments to reach the full working length with or without glide path preparation. Restor Dent Endod, 43:e41.
Alcalde, M. P., Duarte, M. A. H., & Bramante, C. M. (2018). Cyclic fatigue and torsional strength of three different thermally treated reciprocating nickel-titanium instruments. Clin Oral Investig, 22:1865–1871.
Alcalde, M. P., Tanomaru-Filho, M., & Bramante, C. M. (2017). Cyclic and Torsional Fatigue Resistance of Reciprocating Single Files Manufactured by Different Nickel-titanium Alloys. J Endod, 43:1186-1191.
Burklein, S., Benten, S., & Schafer, E. (2013). Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 46:590-597.
Bürklein, S., Flüch, S., & Schäfer, E. (2019). Shaping ability of reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved canals: WaveOne and Reciproc versus WaveOne Gold and Reciproc blue. Odontology, 107:96-102.
De-Deus, G., Silva, E. J., Vieira, & V. T. (2017). Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the reciproc files. J Endod, 43:462-466.
Dentsply Maillefer engineering and testing, Ballaigues, Switzerland, 2014.
Di Giuseppe, I., Di Giuseppe, D., Malagnino, V. A., et al. (2015). Conditioning of root canal anatomy on static and dynamics of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod, 29:58–64.
Elashiry, M. M., Saber, S. E., & Elashry, S. H. (2020). Comparison of Shaping Ability of Different Single-File Systems Using Microcomputed Tomography. Eur J Dent,14:70-76.
Gambarini, G., Rubini, A. G., & Sannino, G. (2016). Cutting efficiency of nickel-titanium rotary and reciprocating instruments after prolonged use. Odontology, 104:77–81.
Giuliani, V., Di Nasso, L., Pace, R., et al. (2014). Shaping ability of WaveOne primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system used in continuous and reciprocating motion. J Endod, 40:1468-1471.
Ha, J. H., Kwak, S. W., & Sigurdsson, A. (2017). Stress Generation during Pecking Motion of Rotary Nickel-titanium Instruments with Different Pecking Depth. J Endod, 43:1688-1691.
Haikel, Y., Serfaty, R., & Lwin, T. T. (1996). Measurement of the cutting efficiency of endodontic instruments: a new concept. J Endod, 22:651-656.
Keskin, C., Demiral, M., & Sarıyılmaz, E. (2018). Comparison of the shaping ability of novel thermally treated reciprocating instruments. Restor Dent Endod, 43:e15.
Kim, H. C., Kwak, S. W., & Cheung, G. S. P. (2012). Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod, 38:541–544.
Kum, K. Y., Sp.ngberg, L., Cha, B. Y., Jung, I. Y, Lee, S. J., & Lee, C. Y. Shaping ability of three Profile rotary instrumentation techniques in simulated resin root canals. J Endod 2000; 26:719-723.
Maniglia-Ferreira, C., de Almeida Gomes, F., & Ximenes, T. (2017). Influence of reuse and cervical preflaring on the fracture strength of reciprocating instruments. Eur J Dent, 11:41-47.
Ozyurek, T., Uslu, G., & Gundogar, M. (2018) Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance and bending properties of two reciprocating nickel-titanium glide path files. Int Endod J, 51:1047-1052
Ozyurek, T., Yılmaz, K., & Uslu, G. (2017). Shaping Ability of Reciproc, WaveOne GOLD, and HyFlex EDM Single-file Systems in Simulated S-shaped Canals. J Endod, 43:805-809.
Peters, O. A., Morgental, R. D., Schulze, K. A., et al. (2014). Determining cutting efficiency of nickel-titanium coronal flaring instruments used in lateral action. Int Endod J, 47:505-513.
Plotino, G., Giansiracusa Rubini, A., Grande, N. M., et al. (2014). Cutting efficiency of Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod, 40:1228-1230.
Santos, C. B., Simoes-Carvalho, M., & Perez, R. (2019). Torsional fatigue resistance of R-Pilot and WaveOne Gold Glider NiTi glide path reciprocating systems. Int Endod J, 52:874-879.
Schafer, E., Erler, M., & Dammaschke, T. (2006). Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments: part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J, 39:203–212.
Schafer, E., & Oitzinger, M. (2008). Cutting efficiency of five different types of rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod, 34:198-200.
Shen, Y., Zhou, H. M., & Zheng, Y. F. (2013). Current challenges and concepts of the thermomechanical treatment of nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod, 39:163-172.
Silva, E. J., Tameirão, M. D., Belladonna, F. G., et al. (2015). Quantitative transportation assessment in simulated curved canals prepared with an adaptive movement system. J Endod, 41:1125-1129.
Vahid, A., Roohi, N., & Zayeri, F. (2009). A comparative study of four rotary NiTi instruments in preserving canal curvature, preparation time and change of working length. Aust Endod J, 35:93–97.
Vasconcelos, R. A., Arias, A., & Peters, O. A. (2018). Lateral and axial cutting efficiency of instruments manufactured with conventional nickel-titanium and novel gold metallurgy. Int Endod J, 51:577–583.
Vinothkumar, T. S., Miglani, R., & Lakshminarayananan, L. (2007). Influence of deep dry cryogenic treatment on cutting efficiency and wear resistance of nickel-titanium rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod, 33:1355–1358.
Wan, J., Rasimick, B. J., & Musikant, B. L. (2010). Cutting efficiency of 3 different instrument designs used in reciprocation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod, 109:82-85.
Yoo, Y. S., & Cho, Y. B. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012; 37: 220–7.)
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2021 Ana Elisa Aguiar Campos; Adriana de Jesus Soares; Ana Grasiela da Silva Limoeiro; Fernanda Tessaro Cintra; Marcos Frozoni; Gabriel Rocha Campos
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
1) Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
2) Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
3) Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work.
