, Volume 107, Issue 1, pp 96–102 | Cite as

Shaping ability of reciprocating single-file systems in severely curved canals: WaveOne and Reciproc versus WaveOne Gold and Reciproc blue

  • Sebastian Bürklein
  • Stefanie Flüch
  • Edgar SchäferEmail author
Original Article


The aim was to compare the canal straightening of M-wire [Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) and WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland)] and gold- and blue-wire heat-treated [Reciproc blue (VDW) and WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Maillefer)] instruments in severely curved root canals. A total of 80 root canals in extracted human teeth with angles of curvatures ranging between 25° and 35° and radii ranging between 3.1 and 8.5 mm were divided into four groups (n = 20). Based on radiographs taken prior to instrumentation, the groups were balanced with respect to the angle and the radius of canal curvature (P = 1.0 and P = 1.0, respectively). All canals were prepared to an apical size 25 according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Pre- and post-instrumentation radiographs were superimposed and canal straightening was analysed using a computer imaging programme. Preparation time and instrument failure were also recorded. Data were analysed statistically using ANOVA and Student–Newman–Keuls test. During preparation no instrument fractured. All instruments maintained the original canal curvature well with no significant differences between the instruments (P = 0.278). Regarding preparation time, no significant differences between the four instruments were obtained (P > 0.05). Under the conditions of this study, all instruments respected the original canal curvature well. Instruments were safe to use. The use of the gold- and blue-wire heat-treated instruments was not associated with an improved shaping ability.


Blue-wire Canal straightening Gold-wire M-wire Heat treatment 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. 1.
    Plotino G, Ahmed HM, Grande NM, Cohen S, Bukiet F. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: a comprehensive review—part II: properties and effectiveness. J Endod. 2015;41:1939–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012;45:449 – 61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pereira ES, Peixoto IF, Viana AC, Oliveira II, Gonzalez BM, Buono VT, Bahia MG. Physical and mechanical properties of a thermomechanically treated NiTi wire used in the manufacture of rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J. 2012;45:469 – 74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Iijima M, Clark WA, Kovarik L, Buie C, Liu J, Ben Johnson W. Metallurgical characterization of a new nickel–titanium wire for rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod. 2009;35:1589–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Pereira ES, Viana AC, Buono VT, Peters OA, Bahia MG. Behavior of nickel–titanium instruments manufactured with different thermal treatments. J Endod. 2015;41:67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gao Y, Gutmann JL, Wilkinson K, Maxwell R, Ammon D. Evaluation of the impact of raw materials on the fatigue and mechanical properties of ProFile Vortex rotary instruments. J Endod. 2012;38:398–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Al-Hadlaq SM, Aljarbou FA, AlThumairy RI. Evaluation of cyclic flexural fatigue of M-wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010;36:305–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Braga LC, Faria Silva AC, Buono VT, de Azevedo Bahia MG. Impact of heat treatments on the fatigue resistance of different rotary nickel–titanium instruments. J Endod. 2014;40:1494–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gambarini G, Rubini AG, Al Sudani D, et al. Influence of different angles of reciprocation on the cyclic fatigue of nickel–titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 2012;38:1408–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Pedullà E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E. Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel–titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2013;39:258–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zanesco C, Só MV, Schmidt S, Fontanella VR, Grazziotin-Soares R, Barletta FB. Apical transportation, centering ratio, and volume increase after manual, rotary, and reciprocating instrumentation in curved root canals: analysis by micro-computed tomographic and digital subtraction radiography. J Endod. 2017;43:486 – 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Martinho FC, Freitas LF, Nascimento GG, Fernandes AM, Leite FR, Gomes AP, Camões IC. Endodontic retreatment: clinical comparison of reciprocating systems versus rotary system in disinfecting root canals. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19:1411–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ferrer-Luque CM, Bejarano I, Ruiz-Linares M, Baca P. Reduction in Enterococcus faecalis counts—a comparison between rotary and reciprocating systems. Int Endod J. 2014;47:380–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    de Brito PRR, Lima PM, Nogueira LS, Emmanuel J, Fidel SR, Fidel RAS, Sassone LM. Effectiveness of ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems in reducing intracanal bacterial load. ENDO (Lond Engl). 2016;10:167–73.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Maini HK, Dodd M, Blundell K, Burnside G, Jarad FD. Technical quality of root canal preparation with novice operators—reciprocation compared with continuous rotary motion. ENDO (Lond Engl). 2017;11:183–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Topçuoğlu HS, Düzgün S, Aktı A, Topçuoğlu G. Laboratory comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc and WaveOne files in canals with a double curvature. Int Endod J. 2017;50:713–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Vieira VT, Belladonna FG, Elias CN, Plotino G, Grande NM. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the Reciproc files. J Endod. 2017;43:462–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, Wang ZJ, Shen Y. Phase transformation behavior and resistance to bending and cyclic fatigue of ProTaper Gold and ProTaper Universal Instruments. J Endod. 2015;41:1134–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Duke F, Shen Y, Zhou H, Ruse ND, Wang ZJ, Hieawy A, Haapasalo M. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile Vortex and Vortex Blue nickel–titanium files in single and double curvatures. J Endod. 2015;41:1686–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Elsaka SE, Elnaghy AM, Badr AE. Torsional and bending resistance of WaveOne Gold, Reciproc and twisted file adaptive instruments. Int Endod J. 2016. (in press).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Mechanical properties of ProTaper Gold nickel–titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2016;49:1073–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Özyürek T. Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc, WaveOne, and WaveOne Gold nickel–titanium instruments. J Endod. 2016;42:1536–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Adıgüzel M, Capar ID. Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne and WaveOne Gold small, primary, and large instruments. J Endod. 2017;43:623–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Keskin C, Inan U, Demiral M, Keleş A. Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc Blue, Reciproc, and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments. J Endod. 2017;43:1360–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Schäfer E, Diez C, Hoppe W, Tepel J. Roentgenographic investigation of frequency and degree of canal curvatures in human permanent teeth. J Endod. 2002;28:211–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hülsmann M. Research that matters—canal preparation, retreatment and working length studies. Editorial Int Endod J. 2013;46:293–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shen YA, Cheung GSP. Methods and models to study nickel-titanium instruments. Endod. Top. 2013;29:18–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bürklein S, Jäger PG, Schäfer E. Apical transportation and canal straightening with different continuously tapered rotary file systems in severely curved root canals: F6 SkyTaper and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J. 2017;50:983 – 90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    D’Amario M, Baldi M, Petricca R, De Angelis F, El Abed R, D’Arcangelo C. Evaluation of a new nickel-titanium system to create the glide path in root canal preparation of curved canals. J Endod. 2013;39:1581–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Alves Vde O, Bueno CE, Cunha RS, Pinheiro SL, Fontana CE, de Martin AS. Comparison among manual instruments and PathFile and Mtwo rotary instruments to create a glide path in the root canal preparation of curved canals. J Endod. 2012;38:117 – 20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of WaveOne, Reciproc and OneShape single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2015;48:109–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2013;46:590–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mamede-Neto I, Borges AH, Guedes OA, de Oliveira D, Pedro FL, Estrela C. Root canal transportation and centering ability of nickel–titanium rotary instruments in mandibular premolars assessed using cone-beam computed tomography. Open Den J. 2017;11:71–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sebastian Bürklein
    • 1
  • Stefanie Flüch
    • 1
  • Edgar Schäfer
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Central Interdisciplinary Ambulance in the School of DentistryUniversity of MünsterMünsterGermany

Personalised recommendations