Background and Objectives: The aim of the present study is to compare the efficacy of three root canal preparation systems in the shaping of 3D-printed root canal replicas of single rooted teeth. Materials and Methods: Sixty 3D-printed root canal replicas were produced and divided into three groups, each consisting of twenty samples. Each group was shaped with a different instrument: Reciproc Blue R25/08 (VDW GmbH, Munich, Gemany), WaveOne Gold Primary 25/07 (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), and ProTaper Gold F2 25/08 (Denstply Sirona). To ensure the reproducibility of pre- and post-operative CBCT images of the root canals, the endodontic printed replicas were placed in a mould of silicon impression material. A cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) software was used to compare pre- and post-instrumentation images collected at three levels of the root canal length: 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apical foramen. The amount of transportation, centring ability, and curvature angle after shaping were evaluated for each system. The results were statistically analysed and compared using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Results: Regarding the transportation of the root canal after shaping, significant differences between groups at 3 mm (p = 0.010721) and 6 mm (p = 0.000046) were recorded in the mesio-distal direction, while in the bucco-lingual significant differences were only observed at 6 mm (p = 0.000554). Reciproc Blue removed more dentin from the mesial and buccal wall of the root canal. When evaluating the centring ability of the three systems, significant differences were observed between the groups at the level of 9 mm (p = 0.037258) in the mesio-distal direction, and at the level of 6 mm (p = 0.038197) in the bucco-lingual direction. Significant differences of the canal curvature angle after shaping were also observed between groups (p = 0.000001). Reciproc Blue straightened the curvature the most, while ProTaper Gold the least. Conclusions: All systems produced minor root canal transportation. No instrument was able to achieve a perfect centring preparation of the root canal. All systems produced a small degree of root canal straightening.

In modern endodontics, nickel-titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments are used on a large scale for root canal shaping. Nevertheless, the separation of an instrument is a serious concern during shaping. The aim of this study is to determine and compare the torsional fracture characteristics of three types of NiTi endodontic instruments, each with different cross-section designs and movements performed during root canal shaping: Endostar E3 (Endostar, Poldent Co. Ltd., Warsaw, Poland); Reciproc R25 (VDW, Munich, Germany); and Protaper Next X2 (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Fifteen instruments are used in this study, divided in three groups (n = 5): Group Endostar, Group Reciproc and Group Protaper. For testing, each instrument is used to shape five simulated root canals, following which its torsional stress to failure is measured. The fracture lengths of all three groups are roughly between 2 and 3 mm from the tip. Higher values of the moment of torsion in fracture, and smaller values of the maximum twisting angle are observed for Group Endostar, as well as closer to circular cross-sections. However, the values of the shear tension are similar for all three groups, because the disadvantage given by the fracture section shape for Groups Reciproc and Protaper is compensated either by size or by intrinsic properties of the instrument material. For the shear tension the Endostar values are insignificantly increased (Kruskal–Wallis test, p = 0.207), and in the case of the maximum twist angle the Protaper values are insignificantly increased (Kruskal–Wallis test, p = 0.287). Because of the instruments shape and conicity, the analysis had to be carried out separately with regard to the length of the fractured tip. Rules-of-thumb are extracted from the study for current practice: if a blockage of the first 2 to 3 mm part of the tip can be anticipated (by the excessive curving of the instrument), the handpiece must be adjusted to torque values that do not exceed 1.5 to 2.5 N · cm for Endostar and 1 to 2 N · cm for Reciproc and Protaper instruments.