Comparative Analysis of Protaper and Waveone Systems to Reduce Enterococcus Faecalis from Root Canal System in Primary Molars – An in Vitro Study

Objective: To assess, in vitro, the ability of the ProTaper^™ and WaveOne^™ systems to reduce Enterococcus faecalis contamination in primary molars. Study design: Sixty roots of primary molars were contaminated with E. faecalis. Roots were randomly allocated to one of four groups (n=20): ProTaper^™, WaveOne^™, control A, or control B. The files used were S1 and S2/F1 and F2 (ProTaper^™ system) and 25.08 (WaveOne^™ system). In control group A, the root canal was left uninstrumented, whereas in control group B, the root canal was irrigated with NaCl 0.9%. E. faecalis was sampled from the root canal system before and after instrumentation and the Wilcoxon test and Mann–Whitney U were used. Results: There were no differences in E. faecalis counts between pre-instrumentation counts in the ProTaper™ and WaveOne^™ (p>0.05). The ProTaper^™ system led to an 89.36% reduction in E. faecalis burden, versus 78.10% with the WaveOne^™ system (p>0.05). Instrumentation time was shorter with WaveOne^™ (p<0.0001). Conclusions: The ProTaper^™ and WaveOne™ systems were equally effective in reducing Enterococcus faecalis in primary molars. The WaveOne^™ system was associated with shorter instrumentation time.

endodontics, primary dentition, root canal preparation, Enterococcus faecalis

1. Azar MR, Safi L, Nikaein A. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and Pro Taper rotary systems and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 9: 146-51, 2012.

2. Pinheiro SL, Araujo G, Bincelli I, Cunha R, Bueno C. Evaluation of cleaning capacity and instrumentation time of manual, hybrid and rotary instrumentation techniques in primary molars. Int Endod J 45: 379-85, 2012.

3. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 38: 743-52, 2005.

4. Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 38: 541-4, 2012.

5. Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 38: 850-2, 2012.

6. Ruddle CJ. Canal preparation: single-file shaping technique. Dent Today 31: 124, 6-9, 2012.

7. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: a comparative study. J Endod 38: 505-9, 2012.

8. 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 45: 449-61, 2012.

9. Machado ME, Sapia LA, Cai S, Martins GH, Nabeshima CK. Comparison of two rotary systems in root canal preparation regarding disinfection. J Endod 36: 1238-40, 2010.

10. Ahmed HMA. Anatomical challenges, electronic working length determination and current developments in root canal preparation of primary molar teeth. Int Endod J Apr 27. doi: 10.1111/iej.12134, 2013. [Epub ahead of print].

11. Sassone LM, Fidel RA, Faveri M et al. A microbiological profile of symptomatic teeth with primary endodontic infections. J Endod 34: 541-45, 2008.

12. Schneider SW. A comparation of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg, Oral Med and Oral Pathol 32: 271-5, 1971.

13. Mohammad RA, Laya S, Afshin N. Comparison of the cleaning capacity of Mtwo and ProTaper rotary systems and manual instruments in primary teeth. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 9: 146-151, 2012.

14. Narayanan LL, Vaishnavi C. Endodontic microbiology. J Conserv Dent 13: 233-9, 2010.

15. Pazelli LC, Freitas AC, Ito IY et al. Prevalence of microorganisms in root canals of human deciduous teeth with necrotic pulp and chronic periapical lesions. Pesqui Odontol Bras 17: 367-71, 2003.

16. Tavares WL, Neves de Brito LC, Teles RP et al. Microbiota of deciduous endodontic infections analysed by MDA and Checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. Int Endod J 44: 225-35, 2011.

17. Hsiao WW, Li KL, Liu Z, Jones C, Fraser-Liggett CM, Fouad AF. Microbial transformation from normal oral microbiota to acute endodontic infections. BMC Genomics 13: 345, 2012.

18. Gomes BP, Drucker DB, Lilley JD. Positive and negative associations between bacterial species in dental root canals. Microbios 80: 231-43, 1994.

19. Molander A, Reit C, Dahlen G, Kvist T. Microbiological status of root-filled teeth with apical periodontitis. Int Endod J 31: 1-7, 1998.

20. Pirani C, Bertacci A, Cavrini F et al. Recovery of Enterococcus faecalis in root canal lumen of patients with primary and secondary endodontic lesions. New Microbiol 31: 235-40, 2008.

21. Wang QQ, Zhang CF, Chu CH et al. Prevalence of Enterococcus faecalis in saliva and filled root canals of teeth associated with apical periodontitis. Int J Oral Sci 4: 19-23, 2012.

22. Nakajo K, Komori R, Ishikawa S et al. Resistance to acidic and alkaline environments in the endodontic pathogen Enterococcus faecalis. Oral Microbiol and Immunol 21: 283-8, 2006.

26. Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 38: 101-4, 2012.

23. Guo HJ, Yue L. Patterns of Enterococcus faecalis in infected root canals: an in vitro study. Beijing Da Xue Xue Bao 41: 699-701, 2009.

24. Karale R, Thakore A, Shetty V. An evaluation of antibacterial efficacy of 3% sodium hypochlorite, high-frequency alternating current and 2% chlorhexidine on Enterococcus faecalis: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 14: 2-5, 2011.

25. Madhusudhana K, Mathew VB, Reddy NM. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using hand and three rotary instrumentation systems - An in vitro study. Contemp Clin Dent 1: 234-6, 2010.