Abstract

Aim of the Study:Need for our study was to evaluate a comparison between canal preparation ability of nickel–titanium (NiTi) hand files with step-back manual technique, of NiTi files installed on a reciprocating hand piece and of Wave-One files utilizing noninvasive cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) technique.Materials and Methods:Thirty extracted intact single-rooted human mandibular premolars were used in the study, segregated in three sets of 10 specimens each, where canal instrumentation was done by different methods using NiTi in step-back technique, using reciprocating hand piece with NiTi files and using primary file with the use of Wave-One reciprocating system. Later, evaluation of centering ability was conducted using the references through CBCT images.Results:Hand NiTi files showed even less canal centering ability as compared to other two sets. Mesiodistal diameter at 9 mm length of the prepared canal was 1.06 and later was 0.98, which shows excessive preparation in case of Set I versus Set II. In case of comparison between Set III and Set I, mesiodistal diameter at 9 mm length of the prepared canal was 0.99, and later was 1.06, depicting better canal shaping ability with Wave-One file.Conclusion:The use of hand NiTi files installed on a reciprocating hand piece would be economically beneficial producing the similar results as that of wave one without any deviation from the original canal anatomy.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call