A Comparative Study on the Shaping Ability and Cleaning Efficiency of Two Different Single-File Systems, Reciprocating Wave One Versus Continuous Rotation F360, Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscope: An In Vitro Study

Arunkumar Samudrala; Chandrakanth Majeti; Kommineni Harika Chowdary; Lakshmi Bhavani Potru; Anusha Yaragani; Yata Prashanth Kumar; Gagandeep K Sidhu; Navneet S Kathuria

doi:10.7759/cureus.37503

A Comparative Study on the Shaping Ability and Cleaning Efficiency of Two Different Single-File Systems, Reciprocating Wave One Versus Continuous Rotation F360, Evaluated by Scanning Electron Microscope: An In Vitro Study

Cureus. 2023 Apr 12;15(4):e37503. doi: 10.7759/cureus.37503. eCollection 2023 Apr.

Authors

Arunkumar Samudrala¹, Chandrakanth Majeti², Kommineni Harika Chowdary³, Lakshmi Bhavani Potru⁴, Anusha Yaragani⁵, Yata Prashanth Kumar⁶, Gagandeep K Sidhu⁷, Navneet S Kathuria⁷

Affiliations

¹ Conservative Dentistry, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Centre, Sriganganagar, IND.
² Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, SB Patil Dental College and Hospital, Bidar, IND.
³ Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Tirumala Institute of Dental Sciences, Nizamabad, Nizamabad, IND.
⁴ Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences, Guntur, IND.
⁵ Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopaedics, Konaseema Institute of Medical Sciences (KIMS) Dental College, Amalapuram, IND.
⁶ Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Government Dental College and Hospital, Hyderabad, IND.
⁷ Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Centre, Sriganganagar, IND.

Abstract

Background: In endodontics, the three processes of biomechanical preparation, disinfection, and obturation are each essential. The electron microprobe and scanning electron microscope (SEM) allowed for the detection and identification of the smear layer and debris. The purpose of the current investigation was to use a scanning electron microscope to evaluate the relative merits of two single-file systems, the reciprocating WaveOne and the continuous motion F360 files, in the cleaning and contouring of root canals in removed teeth. Materials and method: The 50 central maxillary permanent teeth Data was gathered from the Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Division at Sri Ganganagar's Maharaja Ganga Singh Dental College and Research Centre for a number of reasons. Group A followed the manufacturer's guidelines for using the WaveOne instrument, whereas Group B utilised the F360. Reciprocating motion WaveOne system (group A) and continuous motion F360 system (group B) root canals were scored at three levels: coronal third, middle third, and apical third (group B). SPSS version 22 was used for the data analysis. The data were examined using the chi-square test and the one-way analysis of variance. Results: A greater quantity of smear layer was found in the apical third, whereas better results were achieved in the coronal and middle thirds. When compared to the F360 file system, the WaveOne file system is subpar when it comes to clearing the canal of debris. While both groups showed a large amount of debris in the apical third, outcomes were somewhat better in the coronal and middle thirds. Conclusion: The WaveOne and F360 file systems were both more effective in removing trash from the coronal and middle thirds of the disc than they were from the apical thirds. In comparison to the continuous motion F360 file system, WaveOne files demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in the amount of debris cleared from root canals in all three root zone thirds (coronal, middle, and apical). The reciprocating action of the WaveOne file system, in contrast to the continuous motion of the F360 file system, resulted in more extensive cleaning of the root canal smear layer in the coronal and middle thirds and less thorough cleaning in the apical thirds of the canal.

Keywords: biomechanical preparation; f360 file; root canal treatment; smear layer; waveone file.