Assessment of consistency in the dimension of gutta-percha cones of ProTaper Next and WaveOne with their corresponding number files

ABSTRACT

Objectives: To compare the dimensions of gutta-percha (GP) cones of ProTaper Next (25/0.06) and WaveOne (25/0.08) in relation to their corresponding instruments of the same dimension, respectively. Materials and Methods: Two groups of GP cones were made with 25 cones in each group. Group 1 consisted of 25 GP cones # 25/0.06 (ProTaper Next). Group 2 consisted of 25 GP cones # 25/0.08 (WaveOne). Measurements were done at D1 (1 mm short of the tip), D3 (3 mm short of the tip), and D11 (11 mm short of the tip) for GP cones of both groups and were compared with their corresponding instruments. Results: Group 1 (ProTaper) 25/.06 GP points showed greater diameters than those of the corresponding instrument, which was statistically significant. Group 2 (WaveOne) 25/0.08 GP points showed greater diameters than those of the corresponding instrument which was statistically significant whereas it was nonsignificant at level D1. Conclusion: Diameters of both ProTaper Next and WaveOne GP cones were greater than their corresponding instruments. Hence, there are chances of under obturation with both systems.

Key words:

Gutta-percha - obturation - ProTaper Next - WaveOne

• REFERENCES

• 1 Schilder H. Filling root canals in three dimensions 1967. J Endod 2006; 32: 281-90
• 2 Wu MK, van der Sluis LW, Wesselink PR. A preliminary study of the percentage of gutta-percha-filled area in the apical canal filled with vertically compacted warm gutta-percha. Int Endod J 2002; 35: 527-35
• 3 Desai S, Chandler N. Calcium hydroxide-based root canal sealers: A review. J Endod 2009; 35: 475-80
• 4 Cunningham KP, Walker MP, Kulild JC, Lask JT. Variability of the diameter and taper of size #30, 0.04 gutta-percha cones. J Endod 2006; 32: 1081-4
• 5 Hartwell GR, Barbieri SJ, Gerard SE, Gunsolley JC. Evaluation of size variation between endodontic finger spreaders and accessory gutta-percha cones. J Endod 1991; 17: 8-11
• 6 Zinelis S, Magnissalis EA, Margelos J, Lambrianidis T. Clinical relevance of standardization of endodontic files dimensions according to the ISO 3630-1 specification. J Endod 2002; 28: 367-70
• 7 Goldberg F, Massone EJ, Pruskin E, Zmener O. SEM study of surface architecture of gutta-percha cones. Endod Dent Traumatol 1991; 7: 15-8
• 8 Moule AJ, Kellaway R, Clarkson R, Rowell J, Macfarlane R, Lewis D. et al. Variability of master gutta-percha cones. Aust Endod J 2002; 28: 38-43
• 9 Salles AA, Cord CB, Sonnemann TS, De Melo TA, Irala LE, De Oliveira EP. Comparative analysis of the diameter of MTwo system gutta-percha points in relation to their corresponding instruments. Rev Sul Brazileira Odontol 2013; 10: 49-55
• 10 Kim KW, Cho KM, Park SH, Choi KY, Karabucak B, Kim JW. A comparison of dimensional standard of several nickel-titanium rotary files. Restor Dent Endod 2014; 39: 7-11
• 11 Saatchi M, Barekatain B, Behzadian M. Comparing the apical microleakage of lateral condensation and chloroform dip techniques with a new obturation method. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2011; 8: 22-7
• 12 Zanoni EM, Leonardo MR, Lia RC, Tagliavini RL. Empty spaces in endodontic fillings. Rev Gaucha Odontol 1998; 36: 232-9
• 13 Waechter F, Antunes RO, Irala LE, Limongi O. Comparative evaluation between the diameter of standardized cones and secondary cones B8 calibrated by calibration scale, measuring 1 mm from its tips (D1). Rev Sul Brazileira Odontol 2009; 6: 34-43
• 14 Aguiar CM, Cavalcanti JS, Coelho KC. Sealing apical post treatment endodontic. Rev Gaucha Odontol 2004; 53: 281-4
• 15 Kunert GK, Melo TA, Oliveira EP, Barletta FB. Accuracy of the tip diameter on gutta-percha cones of different tapers. Rev Assoc Cir Dent 2008; 62: 309-13