Fracture Incidence of WaveOne and Reciproc Files during Root Canal Preparation of up to 3 Posterior Teeth: A Prospective Clinical Study

Bueno, Clóvis Stephano Pereira; Oliveira, Daniel Pinto de; Pelegrine, Rina Andréa; Fontana, Carlos Eduardo; Rocha, Daniel Guimarães Pedro

doi:10.1016/j.joen.2016.12.024

Cited by 57 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…, Bueno et al . ). The results of the present cross‐sectional retrospective study have shown a low number of fractured instruments in two single‐file reciprocating systems when used by students of an endodontic graduate programme in up to six root canals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…) when used only once, and up to 0.26% when reused (Bueno et al . ). A greatest fracture incidence in the present study may be explained by the clinician's skill level, and some findings have demonstrated that clinical experience is a factor that can influence the incidence of fractured instruments (Mandel et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…, Bueno et al . ). A comparison between experienced endodontists and students of an endodontic graduate programme was conducted by Shen et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Fracture incidence of instruments from a single‐file reciprocating system by students in an endodontic graduate programme: a cross‐sectional retrospective study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Fracture incidence of instruments from a single‐file reciprocating system by students in an endodontic graduate programme: a cross‐sectional retrospective study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In clinical use, reciprocating motion is preferred to reduce separation risk, but even so the file fracture may occur. Despite all of these efforts, rotary file fractures may occur without any preliminary signs (Bueno et al, ), and treatment prognosis may deteriorate. When the file is fractured, a separated fragment (SF) can be retrieved or bypassed.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of different irrigation systems in the presence of intracanal‐separated file

Seven

Cora

2019

Microscopy Res & Technique

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to evaluate conventional syringe irrigation and three different irrigant activation techniques' effectiveness for smear layer removal in the absence and presence of intracanal‐separated file (SF) fragment. Mandibular anterior teeth (160 total) with single canal were used and each root canal preparation was finished with the ProTaper Universal F1. The samples were randomly divided into eight equal groups with n = 20 in each group. The Protaper Universal F3 file was used to simulate intracanal file separation in four groups. To remove the smear layer, final irrigation for each group was performed with conventional syringe irrigation (CSI), EndoActivator, Vibringe, and passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI). The roots were divided into two longitudinal parts and evaluated with scanning electron microscopy, and two observers scored smear layers at 1, 2, and 3 mm away from the minor foramen. The data were analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis and Mann–Whitney U tests (p < .05). PUI significantly removed the smear layer better at all levels than other nonseparated file groups (p < .05). In the presence of intracanal SF, PUI had the most efficiency loss. Sonic techniques and CSI revealed statistically better smear layer removal efficiency than PUI at 3 mm level in the presence of SF (p < .05). The intragroup score analysis at all levels revealed that there were less smear layers at 3 mm than at 1 mm in all SF groups (p < .001). As a conclusion, sonic/ultrasonic methods did not yield better irrigant by‐passing than CSI in the presence of intracanal SF.

show abstract

“…After retreatment, smear layer was removed with 5 mL of 17% EDTA for 3 minutes and flushed with 10 mL of distilled water. Supported by previous study, 21 Reciproc files were used safety in 2 samples and discarded after instrumentation.…”

Section: Root Canal Retreatmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Avaliação comparativa da eficácia de um sistema alternativo de remoção de guta-percha com ou sem solvente

Carvalho

Alvares

Sassone

et al. 2017

Rev. Bras. Odontol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: to evaluate the efficacy of Reciproc System, with or without solvent for endodontic filling removal from oval shaped root canals. The time required for gutta-percha removal and the instrument fracture were also evaluated. Material and Methods: forty straight single-rooted premolars were prepared up to a size 30 and filled with gutta-percha and sealer, then randomly assigned to two retreatment groups (n = 20), treated with Reciproc System with or without chloroform (RS+C and RS). For all roots, procedural errors, time of retreatment and apically extruded material were recorded. After retreatment, roots were split longitudinally and then photographed. All images were evaluated with Image Tool software to calculate the percentage of residual material. Kolmogorov Smirnov and t tests were used to determine significant differences at P < .05. Results: no treatment completely removed the root filling material from the root canals. Analysis of the total area did not reveal statistical differences between the two groups (P >.05). Both groups also showed similar results in all tested thirds, with no statistical differences (P >.05). RS without solvent was faster in filling material removal than RS+C (P <.05). For both groups, none of the instruments showed intracanal fracture or visible signs of plastic deformation. Conclusion: taken together, our results demonstrated that Reciproc System used without solvent required less time to remove the same amount of root filling material than Reciproc System with solvent. However, regardless of solvent use, the same cleaning quality was obtained.

show abstract

Fracture Incidence of WaveOne and Reciproc Files during Root Canal Preparation of up to 3 Posterior Teeth: A Prospective Clinical Study

Cited by 57 publications

References 21 publications

Fracture incidence of instruments from a single‐file reciprocating system by students in an endodontic graduate programme: a cross‐sectional retrospective study

Fracture incidence of instruments from a single‐file reciprocating system by students in an endodontic graduate programme: a cross‐sectional retrospective study

Effectiveness of different irrigation systems in the presence of intracanal‐separated file

Avaliação comparativa da eficácia de um sistema alternativo de remoção de guta-percha com ou sem solvente

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About