COMPARISON OF CENTERING ABILITY AND TRANSPORTATION OF THE PROTAPER NEXT AND ONESHAPE FILE ROTARY SYSTEMS FOR PREPARING SIMULATED CURVED CANAL
AbstractBackground: To compare the effect of ProTaper Next and One Shape rotary files on canal transportation and centering abilities in resin block with simulated curved canal. Methods: An in-vitro experimental study was carried out in Dental clinics. Sixty resin blocks (30 per group) having simulated curved canals prepared with ProTaper Next and One Shape and then filled with red and blue Indian ink, respectively. Photographs of resin blocks obtained using standardized manner were then transferred to the adobe photoshop 7.0. Centering abilities and amount of transportation were then calculated at coronal, middle and apical portion of canal for both the groups. Independent sample t-test was used to compare the transportation and centering ability of both file systems. Level of significance was kept at p-value ≤0.01. Results: One Shape file resulted in more canal transportation at all the levels (apical, middle and coronal part) as compared to ProTaper Next file, however, difference was not statistically significant (p-value >0.01). Statistically significant difference was noted at the apical third between these two rotary files with One Shape file showing more centered preparation as opposed to ProTaper Next file (p-value <0.01). Conclusion: One Shape file system had more centered canal preparations specifically at the apical region as compared to ProTaper Next. One Shape also lead to more canal transportation in comparison to ProTaper Next, however the difference was not statistically significant.
Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18(2):269–96.
Weine FS, Kelly RF, Lio PJ. The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape. J Endod 1975;1(8):255–62.
Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 2001;14(5):324–33.
Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22(7):369–75.
Gunday M, Sazak H, Garip Y. A comparative study of three different root canal curvature measurement techniques and measuring the canal access angle in curved canals. J Endod 2005;31(11):796–8.
Haapasalo M, Shen Y. Evolution of nickel–titanium instruments: from past to future. Endod Top 2013;29(1):3–17.
Mortman RE. Technologic advances in endodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2011;55(3):461–80.
Christian R, Gernhardt PD. One Shape-a single file NiTi system for root canal instrumentation used in continuous rotation. ENDO (Lond Engl) 2013;7(3):211–16.
Iandolo A, Iandolo G, Malvano M, Pantaleo G, Simeone M. Modern technologies in Endodontics. G Ital Endod 2016;30(1):2–9.
Elnaghy AM. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J 2014;47(11):1034–9.
Lee SW, Park YG. Cyclic fatigue resistance of ProTaper Next nickel-titanium rotary files. Int Endod J 2015;48(11):1100.
Peters OA, Peters CI, Schonenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: effects of canal anatomy on final shape analysed by micro CT. Int Endod J 2003;36(2):86–92.
Backman CA, Oswald RJ, Pitts DL. A radiographic comparison of two root canal instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1992;18(1):19–24.
Hashem AA, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RA, Foda MY, Omar GA. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary NiTi shaping systems. J Endod 2012;38(7):996–1000.
Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: a comparative study. J Endod 2012;38(4):505–9.
Ba-Hattab R, Prohl AK, Lang H, Pahncke D. Comparison of the shaping ability of GT(R) Series X, Twisted Files and AlphaKite rotary nickel-titanium systems in simulated canals. BMC Oral Health 2013;13(1):72.
Hata G, Uemura M, Kato AS, Imura N, Novo NF, Toda T. A comparison of shaping ability using ProFile, GT file, and Flex-R endodontic instruments in simulated canals. J Endod 2002;28(4):316–21.
Gergi R, Osta N, Bourbouze G, Zgheib C, Arbab-Chirani R, Naaman A. Effects of three nickel titanium instrument systems on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 2015;48(2):162–70.
Elnaghy AM, Al-Dharrab AA, Abbas HM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness of TRUShape and ProTaper Next systems in curved root canals using micro-computed tomography. Quintessence Int 2017;48(1):27–32.
Saberi N, Patel S, Mannocci F. Comparison of centring ability and transportation between four nickel titanium instrumentation techniques by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 2017;50(6):595–603.
Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative analysis of canal centering ability of different single file systems using cone beam computed tomography-an in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(5):ZC06.
Mittal A, Dadu S, Singh NS, Singh S, Gupta B, Abraham A, et al. Comparative assessment of canal transportation and centering ability of Reciproc and One Shape file systems using CBCT-an in vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2017;11(4):ZC31.
Yuan G, Yang G. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of single-file system versus multi-file system in severely curved root canals. J Dent Sci 2018;13(1):37–42.
Gu YX, Zhu YQ, Du R, Li C. Reliability of two methods on measuring root canal curvature. Int Chin J Dent 2003;3:118–21.
Liu W, Wu B. Root canal surface strain and canal center transportation induced by 3 different nickel-titanium rotary instrument systems. J Endod 2016;42(2):299–303.
Silva E, Pacheco P, Pires F, Belladonna F, De‐Deus G. Microcomputed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation and centring ability of ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive systems. Int Endod J 2017;50(7):694–9.
Pasqualini D, Alovisi M, Cemenasco A, Mancini L, Paolino DS, Bianchi CC, et al. Micro–computed tomography evaluation of Protaper Next and BioRace shaping outcomes in maxillary first molar curved canals. J Endod 2015;41(10):1706–10.
Reddy PJ, Kumar VS, Aravind K, Kumar HT. Canal shaping with one shape file and twisted files: a comparative study. J Clin Diagn Res 2014;8(12):ZF01.
Uzunoglu E, Turker SA. Comparison of canal transportation, centering ratio by cone beam computed tomography after preparation with different file systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(5):360–65.
Wu H, Peng C, Bai Y, Hu X, Wang L, Li C. Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals. BMC Oral Health 2015;15(1):27.
Bürklein S, Mathey D, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of P ro T aper NEXT and BT‐R a C e nickel–titanium instruments in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2015;48(8):774–81.
Saber S, Nagy M, Schäfer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaC e and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2015;48(2):131–6.
Saberi E, Farhad-Mollashahi N, Bijari S, Daryaeian M. Comparative evaluation of root canal transportation by three NiTi single-file systems in curved canals: a cone beam computed tomography study. Int J Dent 2018;2018:4151692.
Nassri MR, Carlik J, da Silva CR, Okagawa RE, Lin S. Critical analysis of artificial teeth for endodontic teaching. J Appl Oral Sci 2008;16(1):43–9.