Introduction:The aim of this study was to compare canal transportation of two single-file systems, WaveOne Gold and Neoniti, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).Methodology:A total of 40 mesiobuccal canals of maxillary first molars with curvatures of 15°–30° were chosen and randomly divided into two experimental groups (n = 20). In both groups, glide path was established using ProGlider. In group 1, canals were shaped with WaveOne Gold and in group 2 with Neoniti A1, respectively. According to manufacturer's instructions, canal preparation was made. Canals were scanned before and after instrumentation using CBCT scanner to evaluate root canal transportation at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apex. Data were statistically analyzed, and significance level was set at P < 0.05.Results:Mesiodistal and buccolingual transportation showed a statistically significant difference at 3 mm (P = 0.009) and 7 mm (P = 0.002), respectively, when instrumented with Neoniti than WaveOne Gold.Conclusion:WaveOne Gold single reciprocation file respected original canal anatomy better than Neoniti single continuous file

Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate the effect of preflaring and file size on the accuracy of the Root ZX and E-PEX Pro electronic apex locators (EALs). Materials and Methods: The actual working length was set 1 mm short of the apical foramen in the forty extracted mandibular premolars. The teeth were embedded in an alginate mold, and two examiners performed the electronic measurements using #10, #15, and #20 K-files. The files were inserted into the root canals until the “0.0” or “APEX” signals were observed on the light-emitting diode or display screens for the E-PEX Pro and Root ZX, respectively, retracting to the 1.0 mark. The measurements were repeated after the preflaring using the S1 and SX Pro-Taper instruments. The mean differences between the actual length and electronic length values were analyzed by the Wilcoxon signed-ranked test with a significance level of P < 0.05. The factors evaluated were “Accuracy of EALs,” “size of file,” and “presence of preflaring. Results: No significant differences were observed in the accuracy of both EALs when compared with the actual lengths. On the size of the file, significant difference noticed with #20 K-file. The preflaring procedure significantly ( P < 0.05) increased the accuracy of the measurements for the Root ZX and Epex Pro. Conclusions: The tested EALs showed acceptable accuracy, whereas the preflaring procedure revealed a more significant effect than the used file size.