Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 7771
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 424-428

Comparative evaluation of effect of rotary and reciprocating single-file systems on pericervical dentin: A cone-beam computed tomography study

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, PMNM Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka, India

Correspondence Address:
Priyanka Ramdas Zinge
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, PMNM Dental College and Hospital, Bagalkot, Karnataka
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_201_17

Rights and Permissions

Aim and Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the effect of one shape, Neolix rotary single-file systems and WaveOne, Reciproc reciprocating single-file systems on pericervical dentin (PCD) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: A total of 40 freshly extracted mandibular premolars were collected and divided into two groups, namely, Group A – Rotary: A1 – Neolix and A2 – OneShape and Group B – Reciprocating: B1 – WaveOne and B2 – Reciproc. Preoperative scans of each were taken followed by conventional access cavity preparation and working length determination with 10-k file. Instrumentation of the canal was done according to the respective file system, and postinstrumentation CBCT scans of teeth were obtained. 90 μm thick slices were obtained 4 mm apical and coronal to the cementoenamel junction. The PCD thickness was calculated as the shortest distance from the canal outline to the closest adjacent root surface, which was measured in four surfaces, i.e., facial, lingual, mesial, and distal for all the groups in the two obtained scans. Results: There was no significant difference found between rotary single-file systems and reciprocating single-file systems in their effect on PCD, but in Group B2, there was most significant loss of tooth structure in the mesial, lingual, and distal surface (P < 0.05). Conclusion: Reciproc single-file system removes more PCD as compared to other experimental groups, whereas Neolix single file system had the least effect on PCD.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded334    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 2    

Recommend this journal