Evaluation of preparation times of WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments compared to two analogous counterparts
Keywords:optimise endodontic, ex vivo study
Manufacturers are constantly developing new products to optimise endodontic treatment. These newer file systems are often associated with increasing expenditure of instrumentation and can affect the cost effectiveness of root canal treatment. Recently, companies have emerged that claim to have successfully reproduced many of the more established endodontic file systems manufactured by Dentsply Sirona (Ballaigues, Switzerland). EdgeEndo (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA) and PacDent (Brea, CA, USA), which manufacture files similar in design to that of Dentsply Sirona, claim that they are similar and sell them at a lower price. A performance comparison of the replica file systems to their original is of clinical importance. The aim of this ex vivo study was to compare the total glide path and canal preparation times of WaveOne Gold Glider (Dentsply Sirona) combined with the Primary WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Sirona), Edge GlidePath (Edge Endo, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA) followed by the Primary EdgeOne Fire (EdgeEndo); and One File G Glide Path (Pac-Dent, Brea, CA, USA) file combined with the Primary One File G (Pac-Dent) Shaping file. Sixty curved untreated canals of extracted, human, mandibular molars were randomly divided into three groups of 20 canals each for mechanical glide path enlargement and root canal shaping. Group 1 (WaveOne Gold Glider + Primary WaveOne Gold); Group 2 (Edge GlidePath + Primary EdgeOne Fire); and Group 3 (One File G Reciprocating Glide Path File + Primary One File G Reciprocating shaping file). The total time taken to prepare a glide path and to complete the root canal preparation of each canal was recorded (in seconds) by means of an iPhone stopwatch (Apple Inc., Cupertino, California). The time taken to change files was not recorded. Throughout the instrumentation process, RC Prep was used as a lubricant, and5 mL 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigation solution. Mean and standard deviations were determined for each group, and analysis of variance was used to statistically compare the mean glide path preparation times for the three groups. The fastest final canal preparation time was achieved by WOGG/PWOG (41.78 ± 10.58 s), followed by OFGP/ POFS (42.02 ± 12.16 s) and then EGP/PEOF (42.49 ± 10.44 s). There were no statistically significant differences between the canal preparation times of the three combination groups (p>0.05).
Mounce R. Endodontics-An Excellent Glide Path, the Road to Smoother Endodontics. Oral Health. 2004; 94(3): 51-8.
West J. Manual versus mechanical endodontic glidepath. Dent. Today. 2011; 30(1): 136-45.
Patiño PV, Biedma BM, Liébana CR, Cantatore G, Bahillo JG. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod. 2005; 31(2): 114-6.
Knowles KI, Hammond NB, Biggs SG, Ibarrola JL. Incidence of instrument separation using LightSpeed rotary instruments.
J Endod. 2006; 32(1): 14-6.
Berutti E, Negro AR, Lendini M, Pasqualini D. Influence of manual preflaring and torque on the failure rate of ProTaper
rotary instruments. J Endod. 2004; 30(4): 228-30.
Shen Y, Haapasalo M, Cheung GS-p, Peng B. Defects in nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. Part 1: Relationship between observed imperfections and factors leading to such defects in a cohort study. J Endod. 2009; 35(1): 129-32.
Cantatore G, Berutti E, Castellucci A. The pathfiles: a new series of rotary nickel titanium instruments for mechanical pre-flaring and creating the glide path. Oral Health. 2010; 100(10): 66-8.
Plotino G, Ahmed HMA, Grande NM, Cohen S, Bukiet F. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: a comprehensive review - part II: properties and effectiveness. J Endod. 2015; 41(12): 1939-50.
Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2013; 39(8): 1067-70.
Amaral P, Forner L, Llena C. Smear layer removal in canals shaped with reciprocating rotary systems. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013; 5(5): e227.
Dietrich MA, Kirkpatrick TC, Yaccino JM. In vitro canal and isthmus debris removal of the self-adjusting file, K3, and WaveOne files in the mesial root of human mandibular molars. J Endod. 2012; 38(8): 1140-4.
Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. 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): 449-61.
Machado M, Nabeshima C, Leonardo M, Reis F, Britto M, Cai S. Influence of reciprocating single-file and rotary instrumentation on bacterial reduction on infected root canals. Int Endod J. 2013; 46(11): 1083-7.
Nabeshima CK, Caballero-Flores H, Cai S, Aranguren J, Britto MLB, de Lima Machado ME. Bacterial removal promoted by 2 single-file systems: WaveOne and One Shape. J Endod. 2014; 40(12): 1995-8.
Siddique R, Nivedhitha MS. Effectiveness of rotary and reciprocating systems on microbial reduction: A systematic review. JCD. 2019; 22(2): 114.
De-Deus G, Silva EJNL, Marins J, et al. Lack of causal relationship between dentinal microcracks and root canal preparation with reciprocation systems. J. Endod. 2014; 40(9): 1447-50.
Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg. Oral Med. Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2): 271-5.
Urbaniak G, Plous S. Research Randomizer v4. 0. 20132016.
Tomer AK, Miglani A, Sahni S, Goud BV, Vaidya S, Kumari A. Comparison of Efficacy of Three Ni-Ti Instruments in Removal
of Gutta-Percha from Root Canal during Retreatment - An In Vitro Study. IOSR. J Dent Med Sci. 2017: 16, 32-7.
You S-Y, Bae K-S, Baek S-H, Kum K-Y, Shon W-J, Lee W. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod. 2010; 36(12): 1991-4.
Paqué F, Zehnder M, De-Deus G. Microtomography-based comparison of reciprocating single-file F2 ProTaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod. 2011; 37(10): 1394-7.
Vorster M, van der Vyver PJ, Paleker F. Influence of glide path preparation on the canal shaping times of WaveOne Gold in curved mandibular molar canals. J Endod. 2018; 44(5): 853-5.
Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2013; 46(6): 590-7.
Saber S, Nagy M, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of Wave One, Reciproc and One Shape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(1): 109-14.
Hwang Y-H, Bae K-S, Baek S-H, et al. Shaping ability of the conventional nickel-titanium and reciprocating nickel-titanium file systems: a comparative study using micro–computed tomography. J Endod. 2014; 40(8): 1186-9.
Bürklein S, Poschmann T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different nickel-titanium systems in simulated S-shaped canals
with and without glide path. J Endod. 2014; 40(8): 1231- 4.
D'Amario M, De Angelis F, Mancino M, Frascaria M,Capogreco M, D'Arcangelo C. Canal shaping of different single-file systems in curved root canals. J Dent Sci. 2017; 12(4): 328-32.
How to Cite
Copyright (c) 2021 Christiaan Victor, Peet J van der Vyver, Martin Vorster, Farzana Paleker, Zunaid I Vally
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright for all articles is retained by the author/s of the individual articles.