Search

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate through computed microtomography the transportation and centralization of root canals instrumented using the WaveOne system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) associated or unassociated with previous apical and cervical enlargements., Methods: Thirty-six mandibular molars were selected with independent mesial roots and curvatures and randomized into the following groups: PathFile (Dentsply Maillefer) before WaveOne Primary (the PFWO group), ProTaper Universal SX (Dentsply Maillefer) before WaveOne Primary (the SXWO group), and WaveOne Primary (the WO group). Computed microtomographic imaging was performed pre- and postpreparation to obtain measurements of mesial and distal dentin walls and calculations of root canal transportation (%) and centralization. One-way analysis of variance was performed to compare the different groups, repeated measures analysis of variance for comparison of the root thirds in each group, and the Student t test for comparisons between the mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals., Results: Transportation of the cervical and middle thirds to the danger zone was observed in both roots, whereas the apical thirds were transported to the outer face of the curvature. In the PFWO and SXWO groups, less transportation was observed in the middle thirds of the mesiobuccal canals compared with the WO group (P < .05). Centralization remained almost unchanged in the SXWO group (P < .05)., Conclusions: In each group, transportation toward the danger zone was mostly observed in the cervical thirds of the mesiobuccal canals. Cervical or apical enlargement resulted in reduced transportation and improved centralization of the middle thirds compared with the exclusive use of the WaveOne system., (Copyright © 2016 American Association of Endodontists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of cervical preflaring on apical transportation in curved root canals prepared using the Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating file systems., Methods: Sixty curved canals were instrumented using Reciproc R25 and WaveOne Primary files, with and without preflaring (n = 15). A double-digital technique was used to digitally superimpose the file before instrumentation (#15 K-file) on the final apical reciprocating file (#25/08). The angle between the tip of the initial and final file was measured and recorded. Groups were compared using the Kruskal-Wallis test, and significance was set at p < 0.05., Results: The mean and standard deviation for apical transportation was 0.93 ± 2.48 for the Reciproc Group, 0.84 ± 1.94 for the Preflaring + Reciproc Group, 0.40 ± 1.14 for the WaveOne Group, and 0.83 ± 2.20 for the Preflaring + WaveOne Group. No statistically significant differences were found among the groups (p = 0.9509)., Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, cervical preflaring did not influence apical transportation in curved root canals instrumented using Reciproc R25 and the WaveOne Primary files. Based on the in vitro measurements of apical transportation, the reciprocating files may be used without preflaring in curved root canals.