Advertisement

Odontology

, Volume 107, Issue 4, pp 500–506 | Cite as

Surface nanoscale profile of WaveOne, WaveOne Gold, Reciproc, and Reciproc blue, before and after root canal preparation

  • A. Mothanna K. AlRahabiEmail author
  • Raghied M. Atta
Original Article
  • 116 Downloads

Abstract

This study aimed to compare the surface topographies and nanoscale profiles of intact and used WaveOne, WaveOne Gold, Reciproc, and Reciproc blue nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments. Sixteen NiTi instruments were evaluated; four from each one of WaveOne (25/0.08), WaveOne Gold (25/0.07), Reciproc (25/0.08), and Reciproc blue (25/0.08) files. Each instrument was used to prepare four curved canals. A three-dimensional nanoscale surface profiler was used to assess instrument surfaces before and after root canal instrumentation. The data were analyzed with one-way analysis of variance using SPSS 21.0 software and set significance at P < 0.05. There were significant differences in surface topography between NiTi instruments. Intact WaveOne and WaveOne Gold instruments had the highest values, followed by the Reciproc and Reciproc blue instruments (P < 0.05). Used WaveOne and WaveOne Gold instruments had the highest values, followed by Reciproc and Reciproc blue instruments (P < 0.05). Some indications of microcracks in qualitatively intact Reciproc blue files were observed, and minor surface cracks in used WaveOne Gold instruments were also observed. Used WaveOne, Reciproc, and Reciproc blue instruments exhibited cracks and microcavities. WaveOne Gold and Reciproc blue instruments had significantly higher levels of surface distortion after root canal instrumentation, and WaveOne exhibited the lowest level of surface deformation. Each of the Reciprocating instruments was safely used to prepare four canals without incident. The three-dimensional stylus profiler provided valuable assessments of the surface topographies of NiTi instruments.

Keywords

Nickel–titanium Reciproc Reciproc blue WaveOne WaveOne Gold 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Editage (http://www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Funding

None.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

10266_2019_424_MOESM1_ESM.xls (120 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (XLS 120 KB)

References

  1. 1.
    Hasheminia SM, Farhad A, Sheikhi M, Soltani P, Hendi SS, et al. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of canal transportation and centering ability of single-file systems. J Endod. 2018;44:1788–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Yamazaki-Arasaki A, Cabrales R, Santos MD, Kleine B, Prokopowitsch I. Topography of four different endodontic rotary systems, before and after being used for the 12th time. Microsc Res Tech. 2012;75:97–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    De-Deus G, Silva EJNL, Vieira VTL, Belladonna FG, Elias CN, Plotino G, et al. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimizes fatigue resistance and flexibility of the reciproc files. J Endod. 2017;43:462–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Pereira ES, Gomes RO, Leroy AM, Singh R, Peters OA, Bahia MG, et al. Mechanical behavior of M-Wire and conventional NiTi wire used to manufacture rotary endodontic instruments. Dent Mater. 2013;29:e318-e24.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y, Haapasalo M. Effect of environment on fatigue failure of controlled memory wire nickel–titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2012;38:376–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zupanc J, Vahdat-Pajouh N, Schäfer E. New thermomechanically treated NiTi alloys—a review. Int Endod J. 2018;51:1088–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Plotino G, Grande NM, Cotti E, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Blue treatment enhances cyclic fatigue resistance of vortex nickel–titanium rotary files. J Endod. 2014;40:1451–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hieawy A, Haapasalo M, Zhou H, Wang Z-j, 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
  9. 9.
    De-Deus G, Moreira E, Lopes H, Elias C. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J. 2010;43:1063–8.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.
    Kiefner P, Ban M, De-Deus G. Is the reciprocating movement per se able to improve the cyclic fatigue resistance of instruments? Int Endod J. 2014;47:430–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Webber J, Machtou P, Pertot W, Kuttler S, Ruddle C, West J. The WaveOne single-file reciprocating system. Roots. 2011;1:28–33.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ruddle CJ. Single-file shaping technique achieving a gold medal result. Dent Today. 2016;35:1–7.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Özyürek T. Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc, WaveOne, and WaveOne gold nickel–titanium instruments. J Endod. 2016;42:1536–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single-file reciprocating system. Roots. 2015;1:34–40.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Hanan ARA, Meireles DAd S, Júnior EC, Hanan S, Kuga MC, Bonetti Filho I. Surface characteristics of reciprocating instruments before and after use—a SEM analysis. Braz Dent J. 2015;26:121–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sağlam BC, Görgül G. Evaluation of surface alterations in different retreatment nickel–titanium files: AFM and SEM study. Microsc Res Tech. 2015;78:356–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Uslu G, Özyürek T, Yılmaz K. Comparison of alterations in the surface topographies of HyFlex CM and HyFlex EDM nickel–titanium files after root canal preparation: a three-dimensional optical profilometry study. J Endod. 2018;44:115–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ferreira F, Barbosa I, Scelza P, Russano D, Neff J, Montagnana M, et al. A new method for the assessment of the surface topography of NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2017;50:902–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971;32:271–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Svec TA, Powers JM, Mitchell JC. Scanning electron microscope observations of new and used nickel–titanium rotary files. J Endod. 2003;29:667–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kuhn G, Tavernier B, Jordan L. Influence of structure on nickel–titanium endodontic instruments failure. J Endod. 2001;27:516–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lopes HP, Elias CN, Vieira MV, Vieira VT, de Souza LC, Dos Santos AL. Influence of surface roughness on the fatigue life of nickel–titanium rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod. 2016;42:965–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Nair AS, Tilakchand M, Naik BD. The effect of multiple autoclave cycles on the surface of rotary nickel–titanium endodontic files: an in vitro atomic force microscopy investigation. J Conserv Dent. 2015;18:218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Inan U, Aydin C, Uzun O, Topuz O, Alacam T. Evaluation of the surface characteristics of used and new ProTaper instruments: an atomic force microscopy study. J Endod. 2007;33:1334–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Tripi TR, Bonaccorso A, Tripi V, Condorelii GG, Rapisarda E. Defects in GT rotary instruments after use: an SEM study. J Endod. 2001;27:782–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cazaux J. Recent developments and new strategies in scanning electron microscopy. J Microsc. 2005;217:16–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Vorburger TV, Rhee H-G, Renegar TB, Song J-F, Zheng A. Comparison of optical and stylus methods for measurement of surface texture. Int J Adv Manuf Technol. 2007;33:110–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Poon CY, Bhushan B. Comparison of surface roughness measurements by stylus profiler, AFM and non-contact optical profiler. Wear. 1995;190:76–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
  32. 32.
    Firstov G, Vitchev R, Kumar H, Blanpain B, Van Humbeeck J. Surface oxidation of NiTi shape memory alloy. Biomaterials. 2002;23:4863–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pirani C, Paolucci A, Ruggeri O, Bossù M, Polimeni A, Gatto MRA, et al. Wear and metallographic analysis of WaveOne and Reciproc NiTi instruments before and after three uses in root canals. Scanning. 2014;36:517–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Barbosa I, Ferreira F, Scelza P, Neff J, Russano D, Montagnana M, et al. Defect propagation in NiTi rotary instruments: a noncontact optical profilometry analysis. Int Endod J. 2018;51:1271–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ferreira FG, Barbosa IB, Scelza P, Montagnana MB, Russano D, Neff J, et al. Noncontact three-dimensional evaluation of surface alterations and wear in NiTi endodontic instruments. Braz Oral Res. 2017;31:0074–9.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of The Nippon Dental University 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of DentistryTaibah UniversityMadinah Al MunawwarahSaudi Arabia
  2. 2.College of EngineeringTaibah UniversityMadinah Al MunawwarahSaudi Arabia

Personalised recommendations