Restor Dent Endod.  2013 Nov;38(4):222-226.

Influence of operator's experience level on lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in extracted teeth

• Saleh AM
• Tavanafar
• Vakili-Gilani P
• Al Sammerraie NJ
• Rashid F

Abstract

OBJECTIVES
The aim of this study was to assess the influence of operator experience level on the lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) in extracted teeth.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Moderately curved canals of extracted maxillary and mandibular molars were randomly distributed into 2 groups: experienced and inexperienced operators. Ten files were allocated to each group (n = 10). Each canal was prepared until the working length was reached, and the same file was used to prepare additional canals until it separated. The number of canals prepared before file separation was recorded. The fragment length of each file was measured, and the location of the fragment in the canal was determined. Data were statistically analysed using the independent 2-sample t-test.
RESULTS
The 2 operators prepared a total of 324 moderately curved canals of maxillary and mandibular molars. There was no significant intergroup difference in the mean number of canals prepared (p = 0.27). The average lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file was 17.1 and 15.3 canals, and the longest lifespan was 25 and 20 canals, when used by experienced and inexperienced operators, respectively. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in separated fragment length and location.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this study, operator experience level appears to have no effect on the lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in preparation of moderately curved canals. Single teeth with multiple canals can be prepared safely even by a novice operator by using a single file.

Keyword

Lifespan; Operator experience; Reciprocating; Separation; WaveOne

MeSH Terms

Molar
Tooth*

Reference

1. Mandel E, Adib-Yazdi M, Benhamou LM, Lachkar T, Mesgouez C, Sobel M. Rotary Ni-Ti profile systems for preparing curved canals in resin blocks: influence of operator on instrument breakage. Int Endod J. 1999; 32:436–443.

2. Yared GM, Bou Dagher FE, Machtou P. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator's proficiency on ProFile failures. Int Endod J. 2001; 34:47–53.

3. Yared GM, Dagher FE, Machtou P, Kulkarni GK. Influence of rotational speed, torque and operator proficiency on failure of Greater Taper files. Int Endod J. 2002; 35:7–12.

4. Shen Y, Coil JM, McLean AG, Hemerling DL, Haapasalo M. Defects in nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. Part 5: single use from endodontic specialty practices. J Endod. 2009; 35:1363–1367.

5. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J. 2008; 41:339–344.

6. Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod. 2012; 37:220–227.

7. You SY, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Shon WJ, Lee W. Lifespan of one nickel-titanium rotary file with reciprocating motion in curved root canals. J Endod. 2010; 36:1991–1994.

8. Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/.04 rotary instruments. J Endod. 2008; 34:1406–1409.

9. Lee W, Song M, Kim E, Lee H, Kim HC. A survey of experience-based preference of Nickel-Titanium rotary files and incidence of fracture among general dentists. Restor Dent Endod. 2012; 37:201–206.

10. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997; 23:77–85.

11. Yared GM, Kulkarni GK. Failure of ProFile Ni-Ti instruments used by an inexperienced operator under access limitations. Int Endod J. 2002; 35:536–541.

12. Parashos P, Messer HH. Questionnaire survey on the use of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments by Australian dentists. Int Endod J. 2004; 37:249–259.

13. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012; 45:449–461.

14. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod. 2012; 38:850–852.

15. Goldberg M, Dahan S, Machtou P. Centering Ability and Influence of Experience When Using WaveOne Single-File Technique in Simulated Canals. Int J Dent. 2012; 2012:206321.

16. Gavini G, Caldeira CL, Akisue E, Candeiro GT, Kawakami DA. Resistance to flexural fatigue of Reciproc R25 files under continuous rotation and reciprocating movement. J Endod. 2012; 38:684–687.

17. Zhang EW, Cheung GS, Zheng YF. Influence of cross-sectional design and dimension on mechanical behavior of nickel-titanium instruments under torsion and bending: a numerical analysis. J Endod. 2010; 36:1394–1398.

18. Al-Hadlaq SM, Aljarbou FA, AlThumairy RI. Evaluation of cyclic flexural fatigue of M-wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010; 36:305–307.

19. Varela-Patiño P, Ibañez-Párraga A, Rivas-Mundiña B, Cantatore G, Otero XL, Martin-Biedma B. Alternating versus continuous rotation: a comparative study of the effect on instrument life. J Endod. 2010; 36:157–159.

20. Blum JY, Machtou P, Micallef JP. Location of contact areas on rotary Profile instruments in relationship to the forces developed during mechanical preparation on extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 1999; 32:108–114.