Comparative evaluation of the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape rotary and Wave One reciprocating files.
OBJECTIVE
This study compared the canal curvature modifications after instrumentation with One Shape (Micro Mega) rotary file and Wave One primary reciprocating file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland).


METHODS
Thirty International Organization for Standardization 15, 0.02 taper, Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer) were used. In all specimens working length (WL) was established at the reference point 0. Glide path was achieved with Path-File 1, 2 and 3 (Dentsply Maillefer) at the WL. Group 1 were shaped with One Shape file and group 2 with Wave One files. Pre and post-digital images were superimposed, processed with Corel draw Graphic Suite X5 (Corel Corporation, Ottawa, Canada), Adobe Photoshop CS3 (Adobe Systems Inc., San Jose, CA) and Solid works student Edition software (Dassault Systems Solid Works Corp, S.A., Velizy, France).


RESULTS
Mean was more for Wave One compared with One Shape. One-way ANOVA and t-test showed a significant difference between One Shape and Wave One at 5% level of significance (P < 0.05).


CONCLUSIONS
Canals prepared with Wave One file preserved canal shape, respected the anatomical shape of J-shaped canal and produced a continuously tapered funnel.
Departments of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences & Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Anil
A
Dhingra
Departments of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, I.T.S. Dental College, Greater Noida, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Rohit
R
Kochar
Departments of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences & Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Satyabrat
S
Banerjee
Departments of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, D.J College of Dental Sciences & Research, Modinagar, Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Punit
P
Srivastava
Canal shaping; One Shape; Wave One; reciprocating motion