Evaluation of preparation times of waveone gold reciprocating instruments compared to two analogous counterparts

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).