ObjectiveThis study identified which regions of ProTaper instruments work during curved
root canal instrumentation.Material and methodsTwelve ProTaper instruments of each type, S1, S2, F1, and F2, were assessed
morphometrically by measuring tip angle, tip length, tip diameter, length of each
pitch along the cutting blades, and instrument diameter at each millimeter from
the tip. Curved canals in resin blocks were explored with manual stainless steel
files and prepared with ProTaper instruments until the apical end following four
distinct sequences of instrumentation: S1; S1 and S2; S1, S2, and F1; S1, S2, F1,
and F2. Image analysis was employed for measuring canal diameters. The diameters
of the canals and diameters of the instruments were compared. Data were analyzed
by one-way ANOVA and Tukey’s test.ResultsNo statistically significant difference was found between the canals and
instrument diameters (p>0.05). The largest diameters in the end-point of the
instrumented canals were obtained with F1 and F2 instruments and in the initial
and middle thirds with S1 and S2 instruments.ConclusionsAll instruments worked at the tip and along their cutting blades, being
susceptible to fail by torsion, fatigue, or the combination of these two
mechanisms.