Working Length Transfer in the Endodontic Clinical Practice: A Comparative Study

The present paper evaluated the accuracy of two different methods for transferring working length (WL) between manual endodontic instruments and nickel–titanium (NiTi) shaping files. Thirty root canals of extracted permanent teeth were used. Root canals were divided according to canal length (CL) and canal curvature (CC). The reference cusp and the root end were flattened to provide reproducible and accurate measurements. During shaping, the WL measurements were obtained with manual k-files (KF) and transferred to WaveOne (W1) NiTi reciprocating files using the traditional method with the endodontic ruler (method I) and an alternative clinical procedure based on the comparison of the instruments side by side from tip to shank (method II). For each file and each tested method, two measures were taken by two examiners using Rhino (ver. 4.0, McNeel, Seattle, WA, USA) software for a total of 360 (30 × 3 × 2 × 2) measures. Analysis of variance was performed by taking the difference in length (Delta WL, DWL) between files used for the same canal. The difference between methods I and II for WL transfer was found to be statistically significant (df = 1; F = 71.52; p < 0.001). The DWL absolute values obtained with method II were found to be closer to 0 mm (i.e., same length as corresponding KF) than those obtained with method I. Both CL (df = 2; F = 1.27; p = 0.300) and CC (df = 1; F = 2.22; p = 0.149) did not significantly influence WL measurements. With respect to WL transfer, method II seemed to better preserve the correct WL transfer between instruments during the clinical endodontic procedures.