ABSTRACT
Objective
To analyze cutting capacity, preparation time, and occurrence of apical deviation, after instrumentation of curved canals with reciprocating Primary WaveOne® and R25 Reciproc® systems.
Methods
Twenty simulated canals with 35° bends were randomly assigned to the Primary WaveOne® or R25 Reciproc® . The preparations were made by a single operator. The cutting capacity was assessed by the difference in weight (on an analytical balance) of the canals before and after preparation. The time needed for the preparation was analyzed. The canals were filled with India ink and photographed on a platform before and after the preparation to analyze the apical deviation to a 1 mm length. The images were superimposed in Photoshop® and the measurement was performed with the ruler tool. Statistical analysis was performed using Student’s t-test. The level of significance was set at 5%.
Results
The WaveOne® Primary system was more effective (in terms of cutting capacity) but had a longer preparation time than the R25 Reciproc® instrument. Apical deviation was the only variable that did not significantly differ between the two systems.
Conclusion
The WaveOne® Primary had a higher cutting capacity than the R25 Reciproc® . Both systems maintained the original canal path. The preparation time was shorter for the R25 Reciproc® than the WaveOne® Primary system.
Indexing terms:
Endodontics; Root canal preparation; Physical properties; Time; Dental equipment; Nitinol
