Cargando…

Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the canal debridement capabilities of three single file systems, ProTaper, and K-files in oval-shaped canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five extracted human mandibular central incisors with oval-shaped root canals were selected. A radiopaque cont...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Topcu, K. Meltem, Karatas, Ertugrul, Ozsu, Damla, Ersoy, Ibrahim
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25202211
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.137636
_version_ 1782332011134844928
author Topcu, K. Meltem
Karatas, Ertugrul
Ozsu, Damla
Ersoy, Ibrahim
author_facet Topcu, K. Meltem
Karatas, Ertugrul
Ozsu, Damla
Ersoy, Ibrahim
author_sort Topcu, K. Meltem
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the canal debridement capabilities of three single file systems, ProTaper, and K-files in oval-shaped canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five extracted human mandibular central incisors with oval-shaped root canals were selected. A radiopaque contrast medium (Metapex; Meta Biomed Co. Ltd., Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea) was introduced into the canal systems and the self-adjusting file (SAF), WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper, and K-files were used for the instrumentation of the canals. The percentage of removed contrast medium was calculated using pre- and post-operative radiographs. RESULTS: An overall comparison between the groups revealed that the hand file (HF) and SAF groups presented the lowest percentage of removed contrast medium, whereas the WaveOne group showed the highest percentage (P < 0.001). The ProTaper group removed more contrast medium than the SAF and HF groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the instruments was able to remove the contrast medium completely. WaveOne performed significantly better than other groups.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4144129
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41441292014-09-08 Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement Topcu, K. Meltem Karatas, Ertugrul Ozsu, Damla Ersoy, Ibrahim Eur J Dent Original Article OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to compare the canal debridement capabilities of three single file systems, ProTaper, and K-files in oval-shaped canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seventy-five extracted human mandibular central incisors with oval-shaped root canals were selected. A radiopaque contrast medium (Metapex; Meta Biomed Co. Ltd., Chungcheongbuk-do, Korea) was introduced into the canal systems and the self-adjusting file (SAF), WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper, and K-files were used for the instrumentation of the canals. The percentage of removed contrast medium was calculated using pre- and post-operative radiographs. RESULTS: An overall comparison between the groups revealed that the hand file (HF) and SAF groups presented the lowest percentage of removed contrast medium, whereas the WaveOne group showed the highest percentage (P < 0.001). The ProTaper group removed more contrast medium than the SAF and HF groups (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the instruments was able to remove the contrast medium completely. WaveOne performed significantly better than other groups. Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd 2014 /pmc/articles/PMC4144129/ /pubmed/25202211 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.137636 Text en Copyright: © European Journal of Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0 This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Article
Topcu, K. Meltem
Karatas, Ertugrul
Ozsu, Damla
Ersoy, Ibrahim
Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement
title Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement
title_full Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement
title_fullStr Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement
title_full_unstemmed Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement
title_short Efficiency of the Self Adjusting File, WaveOne, Reciproc, ProTaper and hand files in root canal debridement
title_sort efficiency of the self adjusting file, waveone, reciproc, protaper and hand files in root canal debridement
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4144129/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25202211
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/1305-7456.137636
work_keys_str_mv AT topcukmeltem efficiencyoftheselfadjustingfilewaveonereciprocprotaperandhandfilesinrootcanaldebridement
AT karatasertugrul efficiencyoftheselfadjustingfilewaveonereciprocprotaperandhandfilesinrootcanaldebridement
AT ozsudamla efficiencyoftheselfadjustingfilewaveonereciprocprotaperandhandfilesinrootcanaldebridement
AT ersoyibrahim efficiencyoftheselfadjustingfilewaveonereciprocprotaperandhandfilesinrootcanaldebridement