| ORIGINAL ARTICLE |
|
| Year : 2014 | Volume
: 17
| Issue : 6 | Page : 561-565 |
|
|
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
Varsha Harshal Tambe1, Pradnya Sunil Nagmode1, Sathish Abraham1, Mahendra Patait2, Pratik Vinod Lahoti1, Neha Jaju1
1 Departments of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SMBT Dental College and Hospital, Sangamner, Maharashtra, India
2 Departments of Oral Diagnosis and Oral Radiology, SMBT Dental College and Hospital, Sangamner, Maharashtra, India
Correspondence Address:
Varsha Harshal Tambe
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SMBT Dental College and Hospitals, Amrutnagar, Sangamner, Ahmednagar - 422 608, Maharashtra
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.144605
|
|
|
Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of Rotary ProTaper, One Shape and Wave One systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in curved root canals to find better instrumentation technique for maintaining root canal geometry.
Materials and Methods: Total 30 freshly extracted premolars having curved root canals with at least 10 degrees of curvature were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. All teeth were scanned by CBCT to determine the root canal shape before instrumentation. In Group 1, the canals were prepared with Rotary ProTaper files, in Group 2 the canals were prepared with One Shape files and in Group 3 canals were prepared with Wave One files. After preparation, post-instrumentation scan was performed. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were obtained at three levels, 3 mm apical, 3 mm coronal and 8 mm apical above the apical foramen were compared using CBCT software. Amount of transportation and centering ability were assessed. The three groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant.
Results: All instruments maintained the original canal curvature with significant differences between the different files. Data suggested that Wave One files presented the best outcomes for both the variables evaluated. Wave One files caused lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than One Shape and Rotary ProTaper files.
Conclusion: The canal preparation with Wave One files showed lesser transportation and better centering ability than One Shape and ProTaper. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
