Abstract
Background: The anatomical complexities and curvature in mesial
canal represent the challenges in the shaping and cleaning during
canal preparation Aim: The purpose of this in-Vitro study was to
evaluate and compare between two different shaping system
MicroMega (2S Shape) continuous motion system and Dentsply
Wave-One Reciprocate (Dentsply, Sirona) reciprocation motion
system during the preparation of mesial root canals for
mandibular first molars, including changes of canal volume,
canal area, occurred during the preparation using a µ-computed
tomography scan (μ-CT). Materials and method the mesial canals
of thirty extracted mandibular first molars with a root curvature of
< 25 degrees according to Schneider’s method, were randomly
divided into two groups (Group I:2S Shape; Group II: Wave-One
Reciprocate), with a total sample size of n = 30. All coronal
segments were respected at the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and
subsequently evaluated with μ-CT before and after preparation.
Statistical analysis: Kolmogorov-Smirnova for normality, paired
T test. Results: The results showed increasing in all the tested
parameters, significant differences were observed between groups
regarding changes in the canals volume and canal area (p<0.05).
Conclusion: the application of two different shaping systems
showed increasing in all canal diameters during the preparation,
while WO. Reciprocate showed less canal change compared to
continuous motion.
canal represent the challenges in the shaping and cleaning during
canal preparation Aim: The purpose of this in-Vitro study was to
evaluate and compare between two different shaping system
MicroMega (2S Shape) continuous motion system and Dentsply
Wave-One Reciprocate (Dentsply, Sirona) reciprocation motion
system during the preparation of mesial root canals for
mandibular first molars, including changes of canal volume,
canal area, occurred during the preparation using a µ-computed
tomography scan (μ-CT). Materials and method the mesial canals
of thirty extracted mandibular first molars with a root curvature of
< 25 degrees according to Schneider’s method, were randomly
divided into two groups (Group I:2S Shape; Group II: Wave-One
Reciprocate), with a total sample size of n = 30. All coronal
segments were respected at the cement-enamel junction (CEJ) and
subsequently evaluated with μ-CT before and after preparation.
Statistical analysis: Kolmogorov-Smirnova for normality, paired
T test. Results: The results showed increasing in all the tested
parameters, significant differences were observed between groups
regarding changes in the canals volume and canal area (p<0.05).
Conclusion: the application of two different shaping systems
showed increasing in all canal diameters during the preparation,
while WO. Reciprocate showed less canal change compared to
continuous motion.
Keywords
comparative
evaluation
Mesial canals
Micro CT