• The Journal of the Korean dental association
• /
• v.52 no.12
• /
• pp.734-743
• /
• 2014

Objectives: By introduced reciprocation motion file in dentistry, dentists benefit simple canal shaping procedure and time-saving. But, reciprocation motion generates uncomfortable vibration to doctors and patients. Because there was no study about this consideration, this study compared vibration pattern and power generated from reciprocation motion motor and conventional rotary motor. Materials & Methods: One conventional rotary motor; X-Smart (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland); and two reciprocating motors; WaveOne Motor (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and X-SMART PLUS (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland); were used in this study. Triaxial $ICP^{(R)}$ Accelerometer (Model 356A12, PCB piezotronics, New York, USA) was attached on motor's handpiece head, and was measured tri-axial vibratory acceleration with NI Sound and Vibration Assistant 2009 software (National Instruments, Texas, USA). Mean vibratory acceleration and maximum vibratory acceleration was measured on fixed position and handed position. The results of vibratory acceleration were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and multiple comparisons are made using Turkey's test at p<0.05 level. Results: Reciprocating motors showed higher mean vibratory acceleration and maximum vibratory acceleration than conventional rotary motor (p<0.05). Between reciprocating motors, X-SMART PLUS had lower mean vibratory acceleration and maximum vibratory acceleration than WaveOne Motor (p<0.05). Conclusion: Reciprocating motors generate more vibration than conventional rotary motor. Further study about effect of vibration to dentist and patient is needed. And it seems to be necessary to make a standard about vibration level in endodontic motors.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.31.1-31.9
• /
• 2019

Objectives: To compare the formation of dentinal defects using stainless-steel hand K-files (HFs), rotary files, reciprocating files, and Self-Adjusting File (SAF), when used for oval root canals. Materials and Methods: One hundred and forty extracted human mandibular premolar with single root and oval canal were selected for this study. Oval canals were confirmed by exposing to mesio-distal and bucco-lingual radiographs. Teeth with open apices or anatomic irregularities were excluded. All selected teeth were de-coronated perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth, leaving roots segments approximately of 16 mm in length. Twenty teeth were left unprepared (control), and the remaining 120 teeth were divided into 6 groups (n = 20) and instrumented using HF (size 40/0.02), Revo-S (RS; size 40/0.06), ProTaper NEXT (PTN; size 40/0.06), WaveOne (WO; size 40/0.09), RECIPROC (RC; size 40/0.06), and the SAF (2 mm). Roots were then sectioned 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, and observed under stereomicroscope, for presence of dentinal defects. "No defect" was defined as root dentin that presented with no visible microcracks or fractures. "Defect" was defined by microcracks or fractures in the root dentin. Results: The control, HF, and SAF did not exhibit any dentinal defects. In roots instrumented by RS, PTN, WO, and RC files exhibited microcracks (incomplete or complete) in 40%, 30%, 55%, and 50%, respectively. Conclusions: The motor-driven root canal instrumentation with rotary and reciprocating files may create microcracks in radicular dentine, whereas the stainless-steel hand file instrumentation, and the SAF produce minimal or less cracks.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.47 no.1
• /
• pp.13.1-13.13
• /
• 2022

Objectives: This study evaluated the efficacy of 3 reciprocating systems and the effects of 2 instruments for irrigant activation on filling material removal. Materials and Methods: Forty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars were prepared up to size 25.06 and obturated. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) examination #1 was performed. Teeth were then divided into 4 groups (n = 10), according to the retreatment protocol: (1) manual, (2) Reciproc Blue, (3) WaveOne Gold, and (4) X1 Blue. Micro-CT examinations #2 and #3 were performed after filling removal and repreparation, respectively. Next, all teeth were divided into 2 new groups (n = 20) according to the irrigant activation protocol: XP Clean (XP Clean size 25.02) and Flatsonic (Flatsonic ultrasonic tip). Micro-CT examination #4 was performed after irrigant activation. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level set at 5%. Results: WaveOne Gold removed a significantly greater amount of filling material than the manual group (p < 0.05). The time to reach the WL was similar for all reciprocating systems (p > 0.05). X1 Blue was faster than the manual group (p < 0.05). Only manual group improved the filling material removal after the repreparation stage (p < 0.05). Both activation protocols significantly improved the filling material removal (p < 0.05), without differences between them (p > 0.05). Conclusions: None of the tested instruments completely removed the filling material. X1 Blue size 25.06 reached the working length in the shortest time. XP Clean and Flatsonic improved the filling material removal.

• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.48 no.3
• /
• pp.22.1-22.8
• /
• 2023

Objectives: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the tip and taper compatibility of accessory gutta-percha points (AGPs) with various rotary and reciprocating instruments. Materials and Methods: Using a profile analyzer, tip and taper measurements were taken of 10 AGPs of each of the 14 models available from Odous de Deus and the 4 models available from Dentsply-Maillefer. Diameter measurements were taken at 1-mm intervals, from 3 mm from the tip (D3) to 16 mm. Results: Based on the mean values obtained, 3-dimensional (3D) models of the AGPs were drawn in Autodesk Fusion 360 and superimposed on 3D models of each instrument selected (Mtwo, Reciproc, RaCe, K3, and ProDesign Logic) to determine the compatibility between the instrument and the AGP. Data corresponding to the tips and tapers of the various AGPs, as well as the tip and taper differences between the AGPs and the instruments, were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The tapers of the AGPs were subject to the American National Standards Institute/American Dental Association No. 57 standard. The Odous de Deus extra-long medium and extra-long extra-medium AGPs were shown to be compatible with Mtwo, K3, and ProDesign Logic instruments with taper 0.06 and tip sizes 25 and 30, while the Dentsply fine and fine medium cones were compatible with Mtwo, RaCe, and K3 instruments with conicity of 0.04 and tip sizes 35 and 40. Conclusions: Both the Odous de Deus and Dentsply commercial brands included 2 AGP models with tip (D3) and taper compatibility with Mtwo, RaCe, K3, and/or Prodesign Logic instruments.