A comparison of root canal transportation and centering ability between WaveOne® Gold and Protaper Next® files, using microcomputed tomography
This study compared the transportation and centering ability of ProTaper Next (PTN) and WaveOne Gold (WOG) files in curved permanent teeth using micro-computed tomography (μCT). Twenty-four molar teeth with curved roots were divided randomly into two equal groups. The root canals of one group was prepared using PTN files, and the other using WOG files. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation μCT imaging were taken for all the teeth. The dentine thickness of the pre-and the post-instrumentation cross sections was measured at eight different points at three levels: 3, 5 and 7mm from the apex, by two dentists using image analysis software. The data were analysed using one-way ANOVA, at a 5% significance level. The transportation in both groups was within the range accepted in the literature. The WOG file exhibited significantly less root canal transportation compared with the PTN file (p=0.001). The WOG file showed a significantly (p<0.001) higher mean centering ratio of 0.4286 when compared to that of PTN at 0.2448. Using a novel technique to measure canal transportation, this study found that the WOG and PTN systems were both suitable for preparation of curved molar root canals, but the WOG showed significantly less canal transportation and better centering ability than the PTN system.
2. Sathorn C, Palamara JE, Messer HH. A comparison of the effects of two canal preparation techniques on root fracture susceptibility and fracture pattern. J Endod. 2005; 31(4): 283-7.
3. Hargreaves KM, Berman LH. Cohen's pathways of the pulp expert consult. Elsevier Health Sciences. 2015; Oct 2.
4. Gambill JM, Alder M, Carlos E. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996;22(7):369-75.
5. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four instrumentation techniques. J Endod. 1997; 23(8): 503-7.
6. Gluskin AH, Brown DC, Buchanan LS. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni–Ti rotary GT™ files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J. 2001; 34(6): 476-84.
7. Glossary of Endodontic Terms. American Association of Endodontists 9th Edn. Chicago, American Association of Endodontists. 2016. Available at https://www.aae.org/specialty/clinical-resources/glossary-endodontic-terms/.
8. Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, Pradeep G. Canal-centering ability: An endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent. 2009; 12(1): 3.
9. Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, et al. Metallurgical characterization of a new nickel-titanium wire for rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod. 2009; 35(11): 1589-93.
10. Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. 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): 1406-9.
11. Haapasalo M, Shen Y. Evolution of nickel–titanium instruments: from past to future. Endod Topics. 2013; 29(1): 3-17.
12. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaC e and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(2): 131-6.
13. Zhao D, Shen Y, Peng B, Haapasalo M. Root canal preparation of mandibular molars with 3 nickel-titanium rotary instruments: a micro–computed tomographic study. J Endod. 2014; 40(11): 1860-4.
14. Zanesco C, Só MV, Schmidt S, Fontanella VR, Grazziotin-Soares R, Barletta FB. Apical transportation, centering ratio, and volume increase after manual, rotary, and reciprocating instrumentation in curved root canals: analysis by micro-computed tomographic and digital subtraction radiography. J Endod. 2017;43(3):486-90.
15. Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM, Badr AE. Torsional and bending resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc and twisted file adaptive instruments. Int Endod J. 2017; 50(11): 1077-83.
16. Marzouk AM, Ghoneim AG. Computed tomographic evaluation of canal shape instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium systems. J Endod. 2013; 39(7): 906-9.
17. McRay B, Cox TC, Cohenca N, Johnson JD, Paranjpe B. A micro-computed tomography-based comparison of the canal transportation and centering ability of ProTaper Universal rotary and WaveOne reciprocating files. Quintessence Int. 2014; 45(2): 101-8.
18. Gergi R, Arbab-Chirani R, Osta N, Naaman A. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2014; 40(8): 1223-7.
19. Baek JY, Yoo HM, Park DS, et al. Comparison of the shaping abilities of three nickel–titanium instrumentation systems using micro-computed tomography. JDS. 2014; 9(2): 111-7.
20. Freire LG, Gavini G, Cunha RS, Santos MD. Assessing apical transportation in curved canals: comparison between cross-sections and micro-computed tomography. Braz Oral Res. 2012; 26(3): 222-7.
21. Shen YA, Cheung GS. Methods and models to study nickel-titanium instruments. Endod Topics. 2013; 29(1): 18-41.
22. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2): 271-5.
23. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes Jr DL. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997; 23(2): 77-85.
24. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004; 30(8): 559-67.
25. Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod. 2000; 26(4): 210-6.
26. Nagaraja S, Murthy BS. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2010: 13(1): 16.
27. Silva EJ, Pacheco PT, Pires F, Belladonna FG, De-Deus G. Microcomputed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation and centring ability of ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive systems. Int Endod J. 2017; 50(7): 694-9.
28. van der Vyver PJ, Paleker F, Vorster M, de Wet FA. Root Canal Shaping Using Nickel Titanium, M-Wire, and Gold Wire: A Micro-computed Tomographic Comparative Study of One Shape, ProTaper Next, and WaveOne Gold Instruments in Maxillary First Molars. J Endod. 2019; 45(1): 62-7.
29. Tasdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, Ünal O. Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni–Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2005; 38(6): 402-8.
30. Pasternak-Júnior B, Sousa-Neto MD, Silva RG. Canal transportation and centring ability of RaCe rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2009; 42(6): 499-506.
31. Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary Protaper, One Shape system and Wave One system using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2014; 17(6): 561.
32. Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson Jr MG. The “balanced force” concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod. 1985; 11(5): 203 -11.
33. Çapar ID, Arslan H. A review of instrumentation kinematics of engine-driven nickel–titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2016; 49(2): 119-35.
34. Topçuoglu HS, Düzgün S, Aktı A, Topçuoglu G. Laboratory comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc and WaveOne files in canals with a double curvature. Int Endod J. 2017; 50(7): 713-7.
35. Özyürek T. Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc, WaveOne, and WaveOne Gold nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod. 2016; 42(10): 1536-9.
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.