Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 729    
     
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 9  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 481-485

An in vitro comparative evaluation of volume of removed dentin, canal transportation, and centering ratio of 2Shape, WaveOne Gold, and ProTaper Gold files using cone-beam computed tomography


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vyas Dental College and Hospital, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jodhpur, Rajasthan
2 Department of Pediatric Dentistry, King Khaled Hospital Al Kharj, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
3 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Seema Dental College and Hospital, Rishikesh, Uttarakhand, India
4 Department of Restorative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
5 Department of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, Maharana Pratap College of Dentistry and Research Centre, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, India
6 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, MES Dental College, Perinthalmanna, Kerala, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Shalini Singh
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Vyas Dental College and Hospital, Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jodhpur
Rajasthan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_444_18

Rights and Permissions

Objectives: The aim of this study was to compare the shaping ability of three file systems – 2Shape (2S), WaveOne Gold (WOG), and ProTaper Gold – using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and  Methods: Fortyfive freshly extracted mandibular teeth were chosen and instrumented using the following brands of NiTi files: 2S, WOG, and ProTaper Gold. Pre- and postinstrumentation CBCT imaging was performed to measure mesial and distal distance of the dentin walls and calculate the volume of removed dentin, apical transportation, and centering ratio. A statistical analysis of the data was performed using independent ttest. Statistical significance was set at 5%. Results: There were no significant differences between the 2S and WOG in terms of the total volume of removed dentin, apical transportation, and centering ratio, whereas ProTaper showed a greater significant difference when compared to 2S and WOG. Conclusion: Both 2S and WOG maintained the original canal anatomy better and did not remove excess dentin while chemomechanical preparation as compared to ProTaper Gold. Instruments that use rotary movement achieved an effect similar to that of the reciprocating instruments in relation to change in angle. 2S which is a two-file system and WOG which is a single-file system might perform better clinically and might show enhanced shaping ability with less canal transportation and more centered preparation when compared to ProTaper Gold that is a multiple file-system.


[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
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
    Viewed26    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded9    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal