Root canal preparation with reciprocating instruments - A literature review and clinical application

Keywords: root canal preparation, reciprocating instruments

Abstract

It is well described that the presence of microbial flora in the pulp space of the tooth, and the inability of the immune system to remove these pathogens, are the major sources of peri-apical and radicular inflam-mation.1 Eradication of these pathogens from the pulp and root canal space by means of cleaning, shaping, disinfecting and complete obturation is necessary to safeguard the health of the periodontal tissues from endodontic infection and subsequent breakdown.2,3

The basic objectives of cleaning and shaping of root canals include: (1) removal of all infected soft and hard tissues; (2) creating space for delivery of disinfectants and medicaments to the apical part of the canal; (3) facilitating three dimensional obturation and (4) preservation of radicular structures.4

Even modern endodontic file systems leave untouched areas on the root canal walls after preparation and show compaction of hard tissue debris.5 This debris consists of pulp tissue remnants, bacteria and dentine chips of which most is found in the apical part of the prepared root canal system.6 Aiming for a centred preparation that corresponds to the original canal anatomy accompanied by the lowest amount of canal transportation, especially in middle and apical parts of curved canals, will result in the most favourable post instrumented canal shape. The four optimal canal shaping objectives are: (1) to have a tapered funnel from orifice to apex, (2) maintenance of original anatomical canal pathway, (3) apical foramen position should remain constant and (4) leaving the apical opening as small as possible.2,7

References

1. Kakehashi S, Stanley HR, Fitzgerald RJ. The effects of surgical exposures of dental pulps in germ-free and conventional laboratory rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1965; 20(3): 340-9.

2. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974; 18(2): 269-96.

3. Schilder H. Filling root canals in three dimensions. 1967. J Endod. 2006; 32(4): 281-90.

4. Hargreaves KM, Berman LH, Rotstein I. Cohen's pathways of the pulp. St. Louis, Mo.: Elsevier; 2016.

5. Lopes RMV, Marins FC, Belladonna FG, Souza EM, et al. Untouched canal areas and debris accumulation after root canal preparation with rotary and adaptive systems. Aust Endod J. 2018; 44(3): 260-6.

6. Siqueira JF, Pérez AR, Marceliano-Alves MF, Provenzano JC, et al. What happens to unprepared root canal walls: a correlative analysis using micro-computed tomography and histology/scanning electron microscopy. Int Endod J. 2018; 51(5): 501-8.

7. Young GR, Parashos P, Messer HH. The principles of techniques for cleaning root canals. Aust Dent J. 2007; 52: S52-S63.

8. Buchanan LS. Working length and apical patency: the control factors. The Endodontic report. 1987: 16-20.

9. de Vasconcelos BC, Veríssimo Chaves RD, Vivacqua-Gomes N, Candeiro GT, et al. Ex Vivo Evaluation of the Accuracy of Electronic Foramen Locators in Root Canals with an Obstructed Apical Foramen. J Endod. 2015; 41(9): 1551-4.

10. Mounce R. Achieving and maintaining apical patency in endodontics: optimizing canal shaping procedures. Gen Dent. 2015; 63(1): 14-5.

11. Flanders DH. Endodontic patency. How to get it. How to keep it. Why it is so important. NY State Dent J. 2002; 68(3): 30-2.

12. Vera J, Hernandez EM, Romero M, Arias A, et al. Effect of Maintaining Apical Patency on Irrigant Penetration into the Apical Two Millimeters of Large Root Canals: An In Vivo Study. J Endod. 2012; 38(10): 1340-3.

13. West JD. Endodontic Update 2006. J Esthet Restor Dent. 2007; 18(5): 280-300.

14. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent. 2001; 14(5): 324-33.

15. Patino PV, Biedma BM, Liébana CR, Cantatore G, et al. The influence of a manual glide path on the separation rate of NiTi rotary instruments. J Endod. 2005; 31(2): 114-6.

16. Cassim I, van der Vyver PJ. The importance of glide path preparation in endodontics: a consideration of instruments and literature. SADJ. 2013; 68(7): 324-7.

17. 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.

18. Abu-Tahun IH, Kwak SW, Ha JH, Sigurdsson A, et al. Effective Establishment of Glide-Path to Reduce Torsional Stress during Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instrumentation. Materials. 2019; 12(3): 493.

19. Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of Root Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio, and Remaining Dentin Thickness Associated with ProTaper Next Instruments with and without Glide Path. J Endod. 2014; 40(12): 2053-6.

20. Jonker CH, De Wet FA, Van der Vyver PJ. The influence of glide path preparation on the failure rate of WaveOne reciprocating instruments. SADJ. 2014; 69(6): 266-9.

21. 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.

22. Kinsey B, Mounce R. Safe and efficient use of the M4 safety handpiece in endodontics. Roots. 2008; 4(2): 36-40.

23. Paleker F, van der Vyver PJ, de Wet FA, Vorster M. Glide path preparation in Endodontics: case report and a literature review of available materials and techniques. SADJ. 2019; 74(3): 129-36.

24. Gambarini G, Plotino G, Sannino G, Grande NM, et al. Cyclic fatigue of instruments for endodontic glide path. Odontology. 2015; 103(1): 56-60.

25. Wagner MH, Barletta FB, Reis MdS, Mello LL, et al. NSK reciprocating handpiece: in vitro comparative analysis of dentinal removal during root canal preparation by different operators. Braz Dent J. 2006; 17(1): 10-4.

26. Fangli T, Maki K, Kimura S, Nishijo M, et al. Assessment of mechanical properties of WaveOne Gold Primary reciprocating instruments. Dent Mater J. 2019; 38(3): 490-5.

27. Topçuoglu HS, Topçuoglu G, Kafdag O, Arslan H. Cyclic fatigue resistance of new reciprocating glide path files in 45- and 60-degree curved canals. Int Endod J. 2018; 51(9): 1053-8.

28. EdgeEndo. EdgeEndo About Edge 2019 [Available from: Links ]edgeendo.com/edgeoneflre/" target="_blank">https://web.edgeendo.com/edgeoneflre/.

29. Tomer DAK, Miglani DA, Sahni DS, Goud DBV, et al. 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(04): 32-7.

30. One File G Reciprocating File - Pac-Dent,Inc. 2019 [2019 -08-31]. Available from: https://pac-dent.com/products/endo-dontic/one-file-g-reciprocating-file.

31. Walia H, Brantley WA, Gerstein H. An initial investigation of the bending and torsional properties of nitinol root canal files. J Endod. 1988; 14(7): 346-51.

32. Scháfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Influence of different types of automated devices on the shaping ability of rotary nickel-titanium FlexMaster instruments. Int Endod J. 2005; 38(9): 627-36.

33. Çapar ID, Arslan H. A review of instrumentation kinematics of engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments. Int Endod J. 2016; 49(2): 19-35.

34. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Uysal B. Effects of ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex instruments on crack formation in dentin. J Endod. 2014; 40(9): 1482-4.

35. Capar ID, Ertas H, Arslan H. Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of novel nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Aust Endod J. 2015; 41(1): 24-8.

36. Capar ID, Arslan H, Akcay M, Ertas H. An in vitro comparison of apically extruded debris and instrumentation times with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, and HyFlex instruments. J Endod. 2014; 40(10): 1638-41.

37. Elnaghy AM. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(11): 1034-9.

38. van der Vyver PJ, Vorster M, Peters OA. Minimally invasive endodontics using a new single-file rotary system.

39. Sirona D. TruNatomy 2019 [Available from]: https://www.dent-splysirona.com/content/dentsply-sirona/en/explore/endodon-tics/trunatomy.html.

40. Grande NM, Ahmed HMA, Cohen S, Bukiet F, et al. Current Assessment of Reciprocation in Endodontic Preparation: A Comprehensive Review-Part I: Historic Perspectives and Current Applications. J Endod. 2015; 41(11): 1778-83.

41. Frank AL. An evaluation of the Giromatic endodontic handpiece. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1967; 24(3): 419-21.

42. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Bray KE. Effect of preparation with en-dodontic handpieces on original canal shape. J Endod. 1976; 2(10): 298-303.

43. Klayman SM, Brilliant JD. A comparison of the efficacy of serial preparation versus Giromatic preparation. J Endod. 1975; 1(10): 334-7.

44. Scháfer E, Lau R. Comparison of cutting efficiency and instrumentation of curved canals with nickel-titanium and stainless-steel instruments. J Endod. 1999; 25(6): 427-30.

45. You SY, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, et al. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod. 2010; 36(12): 1991-4.

46. Bürklein S, Scháfer E. Apically Extruded Debris with Reciprocating Single-File and Full-sequence Rotary Instrumentation Systems. J Endod. 2012; 38(6): 850-2.

47. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J. 2008; 41(4): 339-44.

48. Kim JW, Ha JH, Cheung GS, Versluis A, et al. Safety of the factory preset rotation angle of reciprocating instruments. J Endod. 2014; 40(10): 1671-5.

49. Roane JB, Sabala CL, Duncanson MG, Jr. The "balanced force" concept for instrumentation of curved canals. J Endod. 1985; 11(5): 203-11.

50. Metzger Z, Teperovich E, Zary R, Cohen R, et al. The self-adjusting file (SAF). Part 1: respecting the root canal anatomy - a new concept of endodontic files and its implementation. J Endod. 2010; 36(4): 679-90.

51. Levy G. Canal Finder System 89!!! Improvements and indications after 4 years of experimentation and use. Rev Odontostomatol. 1990; 19(4): 327-36.

52. Dental K. TF™ Adaptive 2015 [updated 2015-07-06. Available from: https://www.kerrdentalcom/ca/kerr-endodontics/tf-adaptive-niti-endo-file-system.

53. Plotino G, Ahmed HMA, Grande NM, Cohen S, et al. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: a comprehensive review-part II: properties and effectiveness. J Endod. 2015; 41(12): 1939-50.

54. Plotino G, Grande NM, Cordaro M, Testarelli L, et al. A review of cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2009; 35(11): 1469-76.

55. Sattapan B, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Torque during canal instrumentation using rotary nickel-titanium files. J Endod. 2000; 26(3): 156-60.

56. Sattapan B, Nervo GJ, Palamara JE, Messer HH. Defects in rotary nickel-titanium files after clinical use. J Endod. 2000; 26(3): 161-5.

57. Ferreira F, Adeodato C, Barbosa I, Aboud L, et al. Movement kinematics and cyclic fatigue of NiTi rotary instruments: a systematic review. Int Endod J. 2017; 50(2): 143-52.

58. Malentacca A, Lalli F. Use of nickel-titanium instruments with reciprocating movement. Ital J Endod. 2002; 16: 79-84.

59. Kim H-C, Kwak S-W, Cheung GS-P, Ko D-H, et al. Cyclic Fatigue and Torsional Resistance of Two New Nickel-Titanium Instruments Used in Reciprocation Motion: Reciproc Versus WaveOne. J Endod. 2012; 38(4): 541-4.

60. Varela-Patiho P, Martfn-Biedma B, Rodriguez-Nogueira J, Cantatore G, et al. Fracture rate of nickel-titanium instruments using continuous versus alternating rotation. Endo-dontic Practice Today. 2008; 2(3): 193-7.

61. Varela-Patiho P, Ibahez-Párraga A, Rivas-Mundiha B, Cantatore G, et al. Alternating versus continuous rotation: a comparative study of the effect on instrument life. J Endod. 2010; 36(1): 157-9.

62. Gambarini G, Rubini AG, Al Sudani D, Gergi R, et al. Influence of Different Angles of Reciprocation on the Cyclic Fatigue of Nickel-Titanium Endodontic Instruments. J Endod. 2012; 38(10): 1408-11.

63. da Frota MF, Espir CG, Berbert FLCV, Marques AAF, et al. Comparison of cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance in reciprocating single-file systems and continuous rotary instrumentation systems. J Oral Sci. 2014; 56(4): 269-75.

64. Tokita D, Ebihara A, Miyara K, Okiji T. Dynamic Torsional and Cyclic Fracture Behavior of ProFile Rotary Instruments at Continuous or Reciprocating Rotation as Visualized with Highspeed Digital Video Imaging. J Endod. 2017; 43(8): 1337-42.

65. Varghese NO, Pillai R, Sujathen UN, Sainudeen S, et al. Resistance to torsional failure and cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and Mtwo files in continuous and reciprocating motion: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19(3): 225-30.

66. Silva EJNL, Hecksher F, Antunes HDS, De-Deus G, et al. Torsional Fatigue Resistance of Blue-treated Reciprocating Instruments. J Endod. 2018;44(6):1038-41.

67. Topçuoglu HS, Düzgün S, Akti 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.

68. 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.

69. Cheung GSP, Darvell BW. Low-cycle fatigue of NiTi rotary instruments of various cross-sectional shapes. Int Endod J. 2007; 40(8): 626-32.

70. Tripi TR, Bonaccorso A, Condorelli GG. Cyclic fatigue of different nickel-titanium endodontic rotary instruments. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol, Oral Radiol Endodontol. 2006; 102(4): e106-e14.

71. Craveiro de Melo MC, de Azevedo Bahia MG, Lopes Buono VT. Fatigue Resistance of Engine-Driven Rotary Nickel-Titanium Endodontic Instruments. J Endod. 2002; 28(11): 765-9.

72. Hülsmann M, Donnermeyer D, Scháfer E. A critical appraisal of studies on cyclic fatigue resistance of engine-driven endo-dontic instruments. Int Endod J. 2019; 52(10): 1427-45.

73. 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.

74. You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, et al. Shaping Ability of Reciprocating Motion in Curved Root Canals: A Comparative Study with Micro-Computed Tomography. J Endod. 2011; 37(9): 1296-300.

75. 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.

76. Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, et al. Investigation on the Shaping Ability of Nickel-Titanium Files When Used with a Reciprocating Motion. J Endod. 2011; 37(10): 1398-401.

77. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and Pro Taper system: a comparative study. J Endod. 2012; 38(4): 505-9.

78. Saleh AM, Vakili Gilani P, Tavanafar S, Scháfer E. Shaping Ability of 4 Different Single-file Systems in Simulated S-shaped Canals. J Endod. 2015; 41(4): 548-52.

79. Gawdat SI, El Nasr HMA. Shaping ability and surface topography of WaveOne Gold and OneShape single files. Endo-dontic Practice Today. 2018; 12(2): 109-18.

80. Bürklein S, Flüch S, Scháfer E. Shaping ability of reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved canals: WaveOne and Reciproc versus WaveOne Gold and Reciproc blue. Odontology. 2019; 107(1): 96-102.

81. Amaral P, Forner L, Llena C. Smear layer removal in canals shaped with reciprocating rotary systems. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013; 5(5): e227.

82. De-Deus G, Barino B, Zamolyi RQ, Souza E, et al. Suboptimal debridement quality produced by the single-file F2 ProTaper technique in oval-shaped canals. J Endod. 2010; 36(11): 1897-900.

83. De-Deus G, Marins J, Silva EJNL, Souza E, et al. Accumulated hard tissue debris produced during reciprocating and rotary nickel-titanium canal preparation. J Endod. 2015; 41(5): 676-81.

84. Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, et al. 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.

85. 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.

86. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Scháfer 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.

87. Tanalp J, Güngör T. Apical extrusion of debris: a literature review of an inherent occurrence during root canal treatment. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(3): 211-21.

88. De-Deus G, Brandão MC, Barino B, Di Giorgi K, et al. Assessment of apically extruded debris produced by the single-file ProTaper F2 technique under reciprocating movement. Oral Surg, Oral Med, Oral Pathol, Oral Radiol, Endodontol. 2010; 110(3): 390-4.

89. Myers GL, Montgomery S. A comparison of weights of debris extruded apically by conventional filing and Canal Master techniques. J Endod. 1991; 17(6): 275-9.

90. Bürklein S, Benten S, Scháfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: R eciproc, F 360 and O ne S hape versus M two. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(5): 405-9.

91. Surakanti JR, Venkata RCP, Vemisetty HK, Dandolu RK, et al. Comparative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal preparation using ProTaper™, Hyflex™ and Wave-one™ rotary systems. J Conserv Dent. 2014; 17(2): 129.

92. Üstün Y, Çanakçi B, Dinger A, Er O, et al. Evaluation of api-cally extruded debris associated with several Ni-Ti systems. Int Endod J. 2015; 48(7): 701-4.

93. Tinoco J, De-Deus G, Tinoco E, Saavedra F, et al. Apical extrusion of bacteria when using reciprocating single-file and rotary multifile instrumentation systems. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(6): 560-6.

94. Ozsu D, Karatas E, Arslan H, Topcu MC. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris during root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and self-adjusting file systems. Eur J Dent. 2014; 8(4): 504.

95. Mollashahi NF, Saberi EA, Havaei SR, Sabeti M. Comparison of Postoperative Pain after Root Canal Preparation with Two Reciprocating and Rotary Single-File Systems: A Randomized Clinical Trial. Iran Endod J. 2017; 12(1): 15-9.

96. Martins C, De Souza Batista V, Andolfatto Souza A, Andrada A, et al. Reciprocating kinematics leads to lower incidences of postoperative pain than rotary kinematics after endodontic treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trial. J Conserv Dent. 2019; 22(4): 320-31.

97. Gummadi A, Panchajanya S, Ashwathnarayana S, Santhosh L, et al. Apical extrusion of debris following the use of single-file rotary/reciprocating systems, combined with syringe or ultra-sonically-facilitated canal irrigation. J Conserv Dent. 2019; 22(4): 351-5.

98. Alkahtani A, Al Khudhairi TD, Anil S. A comparative study of the debridement efficacy and apical extrusion of dynamic and passive root canal irrigation systems. BMC Oral Health. 2014; 14(1): 12.

99. Schneider SWATUSA. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2): 271-5.

100. Machado MEL, Nabeshima CK, Leonardo MFP, Reis FAS, et al. Influence of reciprocating single-file and rotary instrumentation on bacterial reduction on infected root canals. Int Endod J. 2013; 46(11): 1083-7.

101. Nabeshima CK, Caballero-Flores H, Cai S, Aranguren J, et al. Bacterial removal promoted by 2 single-file systems: Wave One and One Shape. J Endod. 2014; 40(12): 1995-8.

102. Siddique R, Nivedhitha M. Effectiveness of rotary and reciprocating systems on microbial reduction: A systematic review. J Conserv Dent. 2019; 22(2): 114-22.

103. Soares CJ, Santana FR, Silva NR, Preira JC, et al. Influence of the endodontic treatment on mechanical properties of root dentin. J Endod. 2007; 33(5): 603-6.

104. Bier CAS, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR, et al. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(2): 236-8.

105. 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.

106. Arias A, Lee YH, Peters CI, Gluskin AH, et al. Comparison of 2 canal preparation techniques in the induction of micro-cracks: a pilot study with cadaver mandibles. J Endod. 2014; 40(7): 982-5.

107. Bürklein S, Tsotsis P, Scháfer E. Incidence of dentinal defects after root canal preparation: reciprocating versus rotary instrumentation. J Endod. 2013; 39(4): 501-4.

108. Ashwinkumar V, Krithikadatta J, Surendran S, Velmurugan N. Effect of reciprocating file motion on microcrack formation in root canals: an SEM study. Int Endod J. 2014; 47(7): 622-7.

109. Liu R, Hou BX, Wesselink PR, Wu M-K, et al. The Incidence of Root Microcracks Caused by 3 Different Single-file Systems versus the ProTaper System. J Endod. 2013; 39(8): 1054-6.

110. De-Deus G, Leal Silva EJN, Marins J, Souza E, et al. Lack of Causal Relationship between Dentinal Microcracks and Root Canal Preparation with Reciprocation Systems. J Endod. 2014; 40(9): 1447-50.

111. Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sheriff M, et al. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (jCT). Int Endod J. 2012; 45(6): 514-23.

112. Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, et al. Investigation on the Shaping Ability of Nickel-Titanium Files When Used with a Reciprocating Motion. J Endod. 2011; 37(10): 1398-401.

113. Ruddle CJ. Single-File Shaping Technique: Achieving a Gold Medal Result. Dent Today. 2016; 35(1): 98-101.

114. Neves MAS, Provenzano JC, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF. Clinical Antibacterial Effectiveness of Root Canal Preparation with Reciprocating Single-instrument or Continuously Rotating Multi-instrument Systems. J Endod. 2016; 42(1): 25-9.

115. Garcia PR, Resende PD, Lopes NIA, Peixoto IFdC, et al. Structural Characteristics and Torsional Resistance Evaluation of WaveOne and WaveOne Gold Instruments after Simulated Clinical Use. J Endod. 2019; 45(8): 1041-6.

116. Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single-file reciprocating system. Roots. 2015; 1: 34-40.

117. Webber J, Machtou P, Pertot W, Kuttler S, et al. The Wave One single-file reciprocating system. Roots. 2011; 1(1): 28-33.

118. Singh S, Abdul M, Sharma U, Sainudeen S, et al. An in vitro comparative evaluation of volume of removed dentin, canal transportation, and centering ratio of 2Shape, Wave-One Gold, and ProTaper Gold files using cone-beam computed tomography. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2019; 9(5): 481-5.

119. AlRahabi AMK, Atta RM. Surface nanoscale profile of Wave One, WaveOne Gold, Reciproc, and Reciproc blue, before and after root canal preparation. Odontology. 2019; 107(4): 500-6.

120. Feghali M, Jabbour E, Koyess E, Sabbagh J. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of debris and smear layer generated by two instruments used in reciprocating motion WaveOne Gold® and Reciproc Blue®. Aust Endod J. 2019; 5(3): 388-93.

121. Miguéns-Vila R, Castelo-Baz P, Rufz-Pihón M, Varela-Patiho P, et al. Comparison of damage to root dentine during engine-driven instrumentation with ProTaper Universal vs. WaveOne Gold. Endodontic Practice Today. 2017; 11(4): 293-7.

122. Dincer AN, Guneser MB, Arslan D. Apical extrusion of debris during root canal preparation using a novel nickel-titanium file system: WaveOne gold. J Conserv Dent. 2017; 20(5): 322-5.

123. Vorster M, van der Vyver PJ, Paleker F. Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of WaveOne Gold in Combination with and without Different Glide Path Techniques. J Endod. 2018; 44(9): 1430-5.

124. Excellent resistance to cyclic fatigue. Br Dent J. 2019; 227(7): 641.

125. Gambarini G, Di Nardo D, Galli M, Seracchiani M, et al. Differences in cyclic fatigue lifespan between two different heat treated NiTi endodontic rotary instruments: WaveOne Gold vs. EdgeOne Fire. J Clin Exp Dent. 2019; 11: 609-13.

126. Bier CA, Shemesh H, Tanomaru-Filho M, Wesselink PR, et al. The ability of different nickel-titanium rotary instruments to induce dentinal damage during canal preparation. J Endod. 2009; 35(2): 236-8.

127. Dosanjh A, Paurazas S, Askar M. The Effect of Temperature on Cyclic Fatigue of Nickel-titanium Rotary Endodontic Instruments. J Endod. 2017; 43(5): 823-6.

128. Lopes HP, Gambarra-Soares T, Elias CN, Siqueira Jr JF, et al. Comparison of the mechanical properties of rotary instruments made of conventional nickel-titanium wire, M-wire, or nickel-titanium alloy in R-phase. J Endod. 2013; 39(4): 516-20.

129. Pereira ES, Gomes RO, Leroy AM, Singh R, et al. Mechanical behavior of M-Wire and conventional NiTi wire used to manufacture rotary endodontic instruments. Dent Mater. 2013; 29(12): 318-24.

130. Pedullà E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, et al. Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2013; 39(2): 258-61.

131. De-Deus G, Moreira E, Lopes H, Elias C. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J. 2010; 43(12): 1063-8.

132. G Yared. Reciproc blue: the new generation of reciprocation. Giornale italiano di endodonzia. 2017; 31(2): 96-101.

133. De-Deus G, Silva EJNL, Vieira VTL, Belladonna FG, et al. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the Reciproc files. J Endod. 2017; 43(3): 462-6.
Views
  • Abstract 0
  • PDF 0
Views and downloads are with effect from 11 January 2018
Published
2020-10-31