IADR Abstract Archives
Comparison of PROTAPER NEXT and Wave One on Shaping
Objectives: PROTAPER NEXT (Dentsply, PTN) that is applied for multi Ni-Ti system is manufactured using M-wire and have a rectangular cross-section and variable taper. Wave One (WO) that made with same M-wire is applied for single file system and have triangle like cross-section. The purpose of this study was to compare PTN and WO concerning the preparation forces, times, and changes of root canal shapes.
Methods: Eighteen transparent resin models (Dentsply) which had curved root canals of 30 degrees were used for shaping with PTN and WO. Three dentists prepared and the total times for preparation with each file were assumed to be the working time. The forces were measured at 100 ms intervals with a digital force gauge. A methylene blue liquid was injected before and after each root preparation and digital photographs were taken. The two photographs were superimposed. The areas of preparation were observed and measured inside and outside of curved canal from side view. The data were analyzed by Student's t-test.
Results: There were no significant differences between the averages of the time required for preparation of PTN and WO. The pushing forces of WO were greater than PTN significantly. The pulling forces of PTN X1 were greater than PTN X2 significantly. The pulling forces were greater than pushing forces on PTN. However, the pushing forces were greater than pulling forces on WO. The outside and inside wall were enlarged almost same area in the whole root canal on PTN, but the outside wall were cut more on WO. The transportation of the apical foramen was not seen on both files.
Conclusions: The Ni-Ti rotary files of single and multi file system indicated that multi PTN was used under the light forces and the root canal walls were prepared with same cutting in a short time.
Methods: Eighteen transparent resin models (Dentsply) which had curved root canals of 30 degrees were used for shaping with PTN and WO. Three dentists prepared and the total times for preparation with each file were assumed to be the working time. The forces were measured at 100 ms intervals with a digital force gauge. A methylene blue liquid was injected before and after each root preparation and digital photographs were taken. The two photographs were superimposed. The areas of preparation were observed and measured inside and outside of curved canal from side view. The data were analyzed by Student's t-test.
Results: There were no significant differences between the averages of the time required for preparation of PTN and WO. The pushing forces of WO were greater than PTN significantly. The pulling forces of PTN X1 were greater than PTN X2 significantly. The pulling forces were greater than pushing forces on PTN. However, the pushing forces were greater than pulling forces on WO. The outside and inside wall were enlarged almost same area in the whole root canal on PTN, but the outside wall were cut more on WO. The transportation of the apical foramen was not seen on both files.
Conclusions: The Ni-Ti rotary files of single and multi file system indicated that multi PTN was used under the light forces and the root canal walls were prepared with same cutting in a short time.