Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 668
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 138-141

Comparative evaluation of the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape rotary and Wave One reciprocating files


1 Departments of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences & Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Departments of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, I.T.S. Dental College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Anil Dhingra
B-3, New Multan Nagar, New Delhi - 110 056
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.128049

Rights and Permissions

Aims: This study compared the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape (Micro Mega) rotary file and Wave One primary reciprocating file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Materials and Methods: Thirty International Organization for Standardization 15, 0.02 taper, Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer) were used. In all specimens working length (WL) was established at the reference point 0. Glide path was achieved with Path-File 1, 2 and 3 (Dentsply Maillefer) at the WL. Group 1 were shaped with One Shape file and group 2 with Wave One files. Pre and post-digital images were superimposed, processed with Corel draw Graphic Suite X5 (Corel Corporation, Ottawa, Canada), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA) and Solid works student Edition software (Dassault Systems Solid Works Corp, S.A., Velizy, France). Statistical Analysis: It was done with mean, standard deviation, one-way ANOVA, (P < 0.05) t-test and Karl Pearson's correlation coefficient. Results: Mean was more for Wave One compared with One Shape. One-way ANOVA and t-test showed a significant difference between One Shape and Wave One at 5% level of significance (P < 0.05). Conclusions: Canals prepared with Wave One file preserved canal shape, respected the anatomical shape of J-shaped canal and produced a continuously tapered funnel.


[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
    Viewed2926    
    Printed50    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded310    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal