Journal of Conservative Dentistry
Home About us Editorial Board Instructions Submission Subscribe Advertise Contact e-Alerts Login 
Users Online: 468
Print this page  Email this page Bookmark this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size
ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE
Year : 2016  |  Volume : 19  |  Issue : 5  |  Page : 440-444

Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between WaveOne and ProTaper rotary by using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study


1 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Chhattisgarh Dental College and Research Institute, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, India
2 Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Maitri Dental College and Research Institute, Anjora, Chhattisgarh, India

Correspondence Address:
Aditi Jain
D-13 Kailash Nagar, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.190024

Rights and Permissions

Aims: To compare the canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness of WaveOne and ProTaper systems using cone beam computed tomography. Subjects and Methods : Forty extracted human single-rooted premolars were used in the present study. Preinstrumentation scanning of all teeth was taken; canal curvatures were calculated, and the samples were randomly divided into two groups, with twenty samples in each group; one group was instrumented with WaveOne system and the other group with ProTaper rotary system. Postinstrumentation scans were performed, and the two scans were compared to determine canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the root apex. Statistical Analysis Used: Student's unpaired t-test. Results: Using Student's unpaired t-test, results were as follows: for canal transportation, Group 1 showed significant difference at 3 mm and 6 mm and insignificant difference at 9 mm while Group 2 showed insignificant difference in all the three regions. For centering ability and remaining dentin thickness, Group 1 showed insignificant difference at 3 mm and 9 mm while significant difference at 6 mm was obtained. When comparison of remaining dentin thickness was done at three levels using two groups WaveOne and ProTaper, there was no significant difference between two groups. Conclusions: (1) WaveOne single reciprocation file system respected better canal anatomy better than ProTaper. (2) Individually, centering ability of WaveOne was better at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm levels. (3) However, ProTaper individually was better centered at 3 mm (apical third) and 9 mm (coronal 3rd) levels than 6 mm level (middle third).


[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
    Viewed1678    
    Printed19    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded271    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal