Effects of 6 Single-File Systems on Dentinal Crack Formation

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid

Abstract

Introduction:

The purpose of this study was to compare the formation of microcracks after canal preparation performed with different single-file systems as One Shape (Micro-Mega, Besancon, Cedex, France), F6 SkyTaper (Komet Italia Srl, Milan, Italy), HyFlex EDM (Coltene/Whaledent AG, Altstatten, Switzerland), WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany), and WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer).

Methods:

Eighty-four human extracted mandibular central incisors (40–60 y) were selected and divided into 6 experimental groups (n = 12 teeth) and a control group (unprepared teeth): One Shape (group 1), F6 SkyTaper (group 2), HyFlex EDM (group 3), WaveOne (group 4), Reciproc (group 5), and WaveOne Gold (group 6). Roots were then sectioned at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, and the surface was observed under a stereomicroscope. Data were analyzed using logistic regression (P < .05).

Results:

No cracks were observed in the control group. All the systems tested caused cracks, mainly in the apical section (3 mm). HyFlex EDM (33.3%) and WaveOne Gold (58.3%) showed fewer microcracks than other experimental groups (P < .01); however, no significant difference was found between them in crack formation (P > .05). There was no difference among the other experimental groups (P > .05).

Conclusions:

All the instruments tested created dentinal cracks. Within the limitations of this study, the flexibility of nickel-titanium instruments because of heat treatment seems to have a significant influence on dentinal crack formation. HyFlex EDM and WaveOne Gold caused less microcracks than the other instruments tested.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles