Shaping Ability of WaveOne Primary Reciprocating Files and ProTaper System Used in Continuous and Reciprocating Motion

IntroductionThe purpose of this study was to compare the shaping effects of Wave One (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and full-sequence ProTaper nickel-titanium (NiTi) files (Dentsply Maillefer) used in reciprocating and conventional movements in a simulated canal.MethodsSeventy-five S-shaped canals in resin blocks were randomly allocated to 3 groups (n = 25): WaveOne (group 1), full sequence of ProTaper Universal files in conventional movements (group 2), and full sequence of ProTaper Universal files in reciprocating movements (group 3). Preoperative and postoperative photographs of the simulated canals were taken under standardized conditions, after which they were accurately superimposed. Two methods were adopted to evaluate the shaping ability of the 3 approaches: measuring the differences in apical and coronal curvature modifications and measuring the amount of resin removed for both curvatures on the right and left sides of the simulated canals. Differences in canal curvature modifications and in the amount of resin removed were analyzed using 1-way analysis of variance (P < .0001) followed by a Tukey-Kramer multiple comparison post hoc test and mixed-effects linear model (P < .05), respectively.MethodsGroup 3 maintained better coronal and apical canal curvature and less straightening of the simulated canals with respect to groups 1 and 2.ConclusionsWhen preparing S-shaped canals, full-sequence ProTaper Universal NiTi files used in a reciprocating motion exhibited better shaping effects than full-sequence ProTaper Universal NiTi files used in a conventional motion and WaveOne.