• Users Online: 182
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 100-103

Evaluation of various kinematics in WaveOne Gold reciprocating file system: An in vitro study

1 Private Practitioner, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
2 Senior Lecturer, Rajas Dental College, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu, India
3 Reader, Noorul Islam College of Dental Sciences, Thiruvanantha Puram, Kerala, India
4 Professor, Chettinad Dental College, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India
5 Reader, Asan Memorial Dental College & Hospital, Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India

Correspondence Address:
Sheerin A Sarthaj
Private Practitioner, Root canal and Implant clinic, Sudarson Hospitals, Tirunelveli, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_18_19

Rights and Permissions

Aim: To evaluate the various kinematic effects of WaveOne Gold reciprocating file system such as 150°° counterclockwise (CCW)–30°° clockwise (CW), 270°° CCW–30°° CW, 360°° CCW–30°° CW, and continuous rotation and the influence of reciprocating and continuous rotary motions of the same file system on the apical extrusion of debris. Materials and Methods: Sixty mandibular premolars were selected. Instrumentation of the canals was done using WaveOne Gold single-file reciprocating systems and grouped into four groups as follows: Group I – 150°° CCW–30°° CW; Group II – 270°° CCW–30°° CW; Group III – 360°° CCW–30°° CW; and Group IV – continuous rotation. The debris extruded through the apical foramen was collected, dried, and weighed, and the raw data thus obtained were subjected to statistical analysis using one-way analysis of variance and least significant difference post hoc tests (P = 0.05). Results: The mean value for the difference of debris extrusion for the four groups was as follows: Group I: 0.0023 ± 0.002 g, Group II: 0.0071 ± 0.0049 g, Group III: 0.0029 ± 0.002 g, and Group IV: 0.0019 ± 0.002 g. The mean value depicted that the manufacturer recommended reciprocation kinematics (Group I) and the continuous rotation (Group IV) extruded less debris than compared to the other two. The intergroup comparison showed that there were significant differences between Group II and III but no significant differences between Group I and IV. Conclusions: Debris extrusion is inevitable. However, the manufacturer prescribed kinematics 150°° CCW–30°° CW and 270°° CCW–30°° CW extruded less debris than compared with the other two groups.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded85    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal