Micro–Computed Tomography Study of Oval-shaped Canals Prepared with the Self-adjusting File, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper Universal Systems

M. A. Versiani, G. B. Leoni, L. Steier, G. A. De-Deus, S. Tassani, J. D. Pécora, and M. D. de Sousa-Neto

Journal of Endodontics. 2013 August; 39(8):1060-6.


INTRODUCTION: The newly developed single-file systems claimed to be able to prepare the root canal space with only 1 instrument. The present study was designed to test the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the preparation of oval-shaped root canals using single- or multiple-file systems.

METHODS: Seventy-two single-rooted mandibular canines were matched based on similar morphologic dimensions of the root canal achieved in a micro-computed tomographic evaluation and assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups (n = 18) according to the preparation technique (ie, Self-Adjusting File [ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel], WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland], Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany], and ProTaper Universal [Dentsply Maillefer] systems). Changes in the 2- and 3-dimensional geometric parameters were compared with preoperative values using analysis of variance and the post hoc Tukey test between groups and the paired sample t test within groups (α = 0.05).

RESULTS: Preparation significantly increased the analyzed parameters; the outline of the canals was larger and showed a smooth taper in all groups. Untouched areas occurred mainly on the lingual side of the middle third of the canal. Overall, a comparison between groups revealed that SAF presented the lowest, whereas WaveOne and ProTaper Universal showed the highest mean increase in most of the analyzed parameters (P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS: All systems performed similarly in terms of the amount of touched dentin walls. Neither technique was capable of completely preparing the oval-shaped root canals.


The full article is available online: ResearchGate

Versiani microCT JEndod 2013


Additional Info

  • ReDent Nova’s note:


    In large long-oval canals such as used in this study, a 2.0mm SAF should have been used rather than a 1.5mm SAF.

    Decoronation of the teeth created artificial conditions that allowed the rotary instruments to reach buccal and lingual areas that in real clinical conditions would have been inaccessible. Above all, the canals were instrumented with extremely large rotary instruments (#55-#60) that were rigid enough to be applied to the buccal and lingual walls at the expense of a significant amount of sound dentin. With all that bias, these results could be expected.

  • publisher: publisher
  • View abstract on PubMed. PMID: 23880278