Abstract:
Manufacturers are constantly developing new products
to optimise endodontic treatment. These newer file systems
are often associated with increasing expenditure of
instrumentation and can affect the cost effectiveness of
root canal treatment. Recently, companies have emerged
that claim to have successfully reproduced many of the
more established endodontic file systems manufactured
by Dentsply Sirona (Ballaigues, Switzerland).
EdgeEndo (Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA) and Pac-
Dent (Brea, CA, USA), which manufacture files similar in
design to that of Dentsply Sirona, claim that they are
similar and sell them at a lower price. A performance
comparison of the replica file systems to their original
is of clinical importance.
The aim of this ex vivo study was to compare the total
glide path and canal preparation times of WaveOne
Gold Glider (Dentsply Sirona) combined with the Primary
WaveOne Gold (Dentsply Sirona), Edge GlidePath (Edge
Endo, Albuquerque, New Mexico, USA) followed by the
Primary EdgeOne Fire (EdgeEndo); and One File G Glide
Path (Pac-Dent, Brea, CA, USA) file combined with the
Primary One File G (Pac-Dent) Shaping file.
Sixty curved untreated canals of extracted, human, mandibular
molars were randomly divided into three groups
of 20 canals each for mechanical glide path enlargement
and root canal shaping. Group 1 (WaveOne Gold
Glider + Primary WaveOne Gold); Group 2 (Edge Glide-
Path + Primary EdgeOne Fire); and Group 3 (One File
G Reciprocating Glide Path File + Primary One File G
Reciprocating shaping file).
The total time taken to prepare a glide path and to
complete the root canal preparation of each canal was
recorded (in seconds) by means of an iPhone stopwatch
(Apple Inc., Cupertino, California). The time taken
to change files was not recorded. Throughout the instrumentation
process, RC Prep was used as a lubricant, and
5 mL 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigation
solution.
Mean and standard deviations were determined for each
group, and analysis of variance was used to statistically
compare the mean glide path preparation times for the
three groups.
The fastest final canal preparation time was achieved
by WOGG/PWOG (41.78±10.58 s), followed by OFGP/
POFS (42.02±12.16 s) and then EGP/PEOF (42.49±
10.44 s). There were no statistically significant differences
between the canal preparation times of the three combination
groups (p>0.05).
