Comparative Evaluation of Root Canal Transportation by Three NiTi Single-File Systems in Curved Canals: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study

Abstract

Introduction This study is aimed at evaluating root canal transportation in the mesiobuccal canal of mandibular first molars prepared with One Shape, Reciproc, and M-One nickel titanium (NiTi) single-file rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods In this ex vivo study, CBCT scans of 45 extracted human mandibular first molars with 20–40° curvature were obtained. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=15) for preparation of the mesiobuccal canal with One Shape, Reciproc, and M-One rotary systems according to the manufacturers' instructions. CBCT scans were obtained again after canal preparation. Changes caused by preparation in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were determined on CBCT scans and analyzed using the Kruskal–Wallis test at P ≤ 0.05 level of significance. Results No significant difference was noted in the amount of canal transportation among the three groups (P > 0.05). M-One caused greater transportation in the apical third compared with Reciproc and One Shape, and One Shape caused greater transportation in the coronal third compared with other groups, although its magnitude was less than 0.3 mm. Conclusion Reciproc, One Shape, and M-One are not significantly different in terms of canal transportation.

Shaping ability of reciprocating and rotary systems in oval-shaped root canals: a microcomputed tomography study

“…Centering ability was evaluated as described by Gambill et al 18 , who defines centering ability as the ability of the endodontic instrument to remain on the central axis of the root canal. In the present study, no significant difference was observed in centering ability between experimental groups, which is in line with other studies 12 , 28 . Although our study showed similar shaping ability in general results, when each section was analyzed separately, WOG file had less transportation than the MTwo instrument at the 5 mm section from the apex, which partially rejects the second hypothesis.…”

“…Centering ability was evaluated as described by Gambill et al 18 , who defines centering ability as the ability of the endodontic instrument to remain on the central axis of the root canal. In the present study, no significant difference was observed in centering ability between experimental groups, which is in line with other studies 12,28 .…”

Comparative evaluation of dentin volume removal and centralization of the root canal after shaping with the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Gold, and One-Curve instruments using micro-CT

“…Canal transplantation results from the proclivity of the file to flatten and get back to its initial regular form while preparing the inclined root canal, which means removal of dentine completely from the outer surface of the curvature in the apical part of the canal. 16 SMI should be considering for suitable preparation to root canal anatomy that includes a measurement of root convexity in three- dimensional structure. 17 …”