Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2013 Jun;46(6):590-7.
doi: 10.1111/iej.12037. Epub 2012 Dec 13.

Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth

Affiliations
Comparative Study

Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth

S Bürklein et al. Int Endod J. 2013 Jun.

Abstract

Aim: To compare the shaping ability of three different single-file systems with Mtwo rotary instruments during the preparation of curved root canals in extracted teeth.

Methodology: A total of 80 root canals with curvatures ranging between 25° and 35° were divided into four groups of 20 canals. Based on radiographs taken prior to instrumentation, the groups were balanced with respect to the angle and the radius of canal curvature. Canals were prepared to the following apical sizes: Mtwo: size 30 using the single-length technique; Reciproc, F360, and OneShape: size 25. Using pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs, straightening of the canal curvatures was determined with a computer image analysis programme. Preparation time, changes in working length, and instrument failures were also recorded. These data were analysed statistically using anova and Student-Newman-Keuls test.

Results: During preparation, no file fractured. All instruments maintained the original canal curvature well with no significant differences between the instrument systems (P = 0.792). Instrumentation with Reciproc and OneShape was significantly faster than with F360 and Mtwo (P < 0.05), while F360 was significantly faster than Mtwo (P < 0.05). No significant differences were obtained regarding changes in working length during instrumentation with the different instruments (P = 0.784).

Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, all instruments respected the original canal curvature well and were safe to use. The use of Reciproc and OneShape instruments required less time to prepare the curved canals compared with Mtwo and F360.

PubMed Disclaimer

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources