Hui Wu and Cheng Peng contributed equally to this work.
The authors declare that they have no competing interests.
HW carried out the canals instrumentation, participated in the image processing and drafted the manuscript. CP was involved in the design of the study and revising the manuscript. YB participated in the image processing and performed the statistical analysis. XH, LW, and CL participated in the design of the study and helped to draft the manuscript. All authors have read and approved the final manuscript.
The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the ProTaper Universal (PTU; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne (WO; Dentsply Maillefer) and ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer) in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals respectively.
30 simulated L-shaped and 30 simulated S-shaped root canals in resin blocks were employed and randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 10), respectively. The canals were prepared to a tip size 25 using PTU, WO or PTN: PTU F2 (taper 0.08 over the first 3 mm from apical tip), WO Primary (taper 0.08 over the first 3 mm from apical tip), and PTN X2 (taper 0.06 over the first 3 mm from apical tip). Photos of the simulated root canals were taken pre- and postinstrumentation. The 2 layers were superimposed after a series of image processing and 10 points were selected from apical constriction with 1 mm interval. And then the central axis transportation and straightened curvature were measured with software of image analysis.
In simulated L-shaped root canals, PTU and PTN caused less transportation than WO at curved section (P < 0.05), and PTN caused the least transportation at apical constriction (P < 0.05). Moreover, PTN maintained the canal curvature best among the 3 groups (P < 0.05). But PTN produced more transportation at straight section compared with PTU and WO (P < 0.05). In simulated S-shaped root canals, PTN preserved the coronal curvature best (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in apical curvature since all the files straightened the curvature obviously.
PTN showed a better shaping ability than PTU and WO at the curved section of root canals, and PTN maintained the best apical constriction. But all the files had a tendency to straighten the apical curvature in multi-curved canals.
Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am. 1974;18(2):269–96. PubMed
Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PMH. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005;10(1):30–76. CrossRef
Yin LY, Xie XL, Chen MM, Liu LH, Ling TY. [Experimental study of preparing curved root canals with different instrument]. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2008;26(6):660–3. PubMed
Ha J, Cheung G, Versluis A, Lee C, Kwak S, Kim H. ‘Screw-in’ tendency of rotary nickel-titanium files due to design geometry. Int Endod J. 2014. [Epub ahead of print]
- Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals
- BioMed Central
Neu im Fachgebiet Zahnmedizin
Mail Icon II