Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 3692
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
Year : 2018  |  Volume : 21  |  Issue : 6  |  Page : 637-641

Comparative analysis of canal-centering ratio, apical transportation, and remaining dentin thickness between single-file systems, i.e., OneShape and WaveOne reciprocation: An in vitro study

1 Sr. Lecturer, Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Center, Durg, Chhattisgarh, India
2 Reader, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research Center, Bhilai, Chhattisgarh, India
3 Reader, Maitri College of Dentistry and Research Center, Durg, Chhattisgarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Aditi Jain
D 13, Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon - 491 441, Chhattisgarh
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/JCD.JCD_101_18

Rights and Permissions

Aim: This study aimed to compare the canal-centering ability, apical transportation, and remaining dentin thickness (RDT) of OneShape and WaveOne (WO) systems using cone-beam computed tomography. Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the efficiency of two rotary systems in maintaining original root canal anatomy. Materials and Methods: Forty extracted human single-rooted mandibular premolars were used in the present study. Preinstrumentation scans of all teeth were taken, canal curvatures were calculated, and the samples were randomly divided into two groups with twenty samples in each group: Group 1 – OneShape (OS) rotary system and Group 2 – WO reciprocation system. Postinstrumentation scans were performed using DICOM software and the two scans were compared to determine the canal-centering ability, canal transportation, and RDT at 1, 3, and 5 mm from the root apex. Results: Using Student's unpaired t-test, results were as follows: for canal-centering ability and RDT, Group 1 showed nonstatistically significant difference at 1 and 5 mm, while statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) at 3 mm was obtained. For canal transportation, Group 1 showed statistically significant difference (P < 0.05) at 1 and 3 mm and nonsignificant difference was obtained at 5 mm, but for Group 2, nonstatistically significant difference (P > 0.05) was obtained at 1, 3, and 5 mm. When comparing the RDT between both the groups, the difference was not statistically significant (P > 0.05). Conclusion: WO single reciprocation file has better canal-centering ability, maintains original canal curvature, causes lesser canal transportation, and preserves more dentine as compared to OS.

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 Downloaded231    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal