Abstract

Objective: This study attempted to compare the shaping abilities of the 2Shape, Neolix and Pro Taper Next rotary NiTi systems in terms of canal transportation and centering ability by cone beam computed tomography. 

Methods: Mesiobuccal canals of fifty-seven first mandibular molar teeth with an angle of curvature ranging from 20^ℴ to 40^ℴ according to Schneider’s technique were randomly assigned into three groups according to the rotary system used (n = 19). Canals were scanned using cone beam computed tomography before and after preparation to evaluate canal transportation and centering ratio at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference in amounts of mesiodistal canal transportation between the three groups at the apical, middle and coronal thirds. There was no statistically significant difference in the centric ratio between the three groups at the coronal and apical thirds. At the middle third, the 2Shape and ProTaper Next showed higher statistically significantly median centric ratio in the mesiodistal direction than Neolix group.

Conclusions: The three systems showed comparable performance regarding the degree of canal transportation and centering ability.

Keywords: Cone Beam Computed Tomography; Canal Transportation; Centering Ability; 2Shape; Pro Taper Next; Neolix

References

1. Hülsmann M., et al. “Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means”. Endodontic Topics 10.1 (2005): 30-76.
2. Schilder H. “Cleaning and shaping the root canal”. Dental Clinics of North America 18 (1974): 269-296.
3. Burkhardt L., et al. “Comparison of the shaping ability of RaCe, FlexMaster, and ProFile nickel-titanium instruments in severely curved root canals”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 8.5 (2016): e523-e528. 
4. Gambill JM., et al. “Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography”. Journal of Endodontics 22.7 (1996): 369-375.
5. Wu MK., et al. “Does the first file to bind correspond to the diameter of the canal in the apical region”. International Endodontic Journal 35.3 (2002): 264-267.  
6. Drukteinis S., et al. “Shaping ability of BioRace, Pro Taper NEXT and Genius nickel‐titanium instruments in curved canals of mandibular molars: a Micro CT study”. International Endodontic Journal 52.1 (2019): 86-93. 
7. Uslu G., et al. “Cyclic fatigue resistance of 2Shape, Twisted File and EndoSequence Xpress nickel-titanium rotary files at intracanal temperature”. Journal of Dental Research, Dental Clinics, Dental Prospects 12.4 (2018): 283.
8. Aminsobhani M., et al. “The effect of root canal preparation using single versus multiple endodontic rotary files on post-operative pain, a randomised clinical trial”. European Endodontic Journal 2.1 (2017): 1. 
9. Ruddle CJ., et al. “Fifth-generation technology in endodontic: The shaping movement”. Roots 1 (2014): 22-28. 
10. Bürklein S., et al. “Shaping ability of P ro T aper NEXT and BT‐R a C e nickel–titanium instruments in severely curved root canals”. International Endodontic Journal 48.8 (2015): 774-781. 
11. Elnaghy AM and Elsaka SE. “Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Next instruments with and without glide path”. Journal of Endodontics 40.12 (2014): 2053-2056.
12. Liu Y., et al. “Comparison of shaping ability of five nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated curved canals. of. 5 (2017): 2. 
13. Stern S., et al. “Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel–titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro‐computed tomography (μCT)”. International Endodontic Journal 45.6 (2012): 514-523. 
14. Wu MK., et al. “Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings”. Journal of Endodontics 26.4 (2000): 210-216.
15. Vallaeys K., et al. “Comparative analysis of canal transportation and centring ability of three Ni–Ti rotary endodontic systems: Protaper®, MTwo® and Revo-S™, assessed by micro-computed tomography”. Odontology 104.1 (2016): 83-88. 
16. Silva EJ., et al. “Comparison of canal transportation in simulated curved canals prepared with ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold systems”. Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics 41.1 (2016): 1-5. 
17. Iqbal MK., et al. “Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile™ and ProTaper™ NiTi rotary instruments”. International Endodontic Journal 37.6 (2004): 359-364.
18. Nagy CD., et al. “The effect of root canal morphology on canal shape following instrumentation using different techniques”. International Endodontic Journal 30.2 (1997):133-140. 
19. Naenni N., et al. “Soft tissue dissolution capacity of currently used and potential endodontic irrigants”. Journal of Endodontics 30.11 (2004): 785-787. 
20. Coldero LG., et al. “Reduction in intracanal bacteria during root canal preparation with and without apical enlargement”. International Endodontic Journal 35.5 (2002): 437-446.
21. Crumpton BJ., et al. “Effects on smear layer and debris removal with varying volumes of 17% REDTA after rotary instrumentation”. Journal of Endodontics 31.7 (2005): 536-538. 
22. Silva EJ., et al. “Microcomputed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation and centring ability of ProTaper Next and Twisted File Adaptive systems”. International Endodontic Journal 50.7 (2017): 694-699.
23. Setzer FC., et al. “Comparison of apical transportation between two rotary file systems and two hybrid rotary instrumentation sequences”. Journal of Endodontics 36.7 (2010): 1226-1229.
24. Gluskin AH., et al. “A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni–Ti rotary GT™ files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators”. International Endodontic Journal 34.6 (2001): 476-484.
25. Venino PM., et al. “A Micro–computed Tomography Evaluation of the Shaping Ability of Two Nickel-titanium Instruments, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next”. Journal of Endodontics 43.4 (2017): 628-632.
26. Marzouk AM and Ghoneim AG. “Computed tomographic evaluation of canal shape instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium systems”. Journal of Endodontics 39.7 (2013): 906-909.
27. Brasil SC., et al. “Canal transportation, unprepared areas, and dentin removal after preparation with bt-race and protaper next systems”. Journal of Endodontics 43.10 (2017): 1683-1687. 
28. Forghani M., et al. “Comparison of the shaping characteristics of Neolix and Protaper Universal systems in preparation of severely-curved simulated canals”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 9.4 (2017): e556. 
29. Staffoli S., et al. “Comparison of shaping ability of ProTaper Next and 2Shape nickel–titanium files in simulated severe curved canals”. Giornale Italiano Di Endodonzia 32.2 (2018): 52-56.
30. Saber SE., et al. “Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaC e and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals”. International Endodontic Journal 48.2 (2015): 131-136.

Citation

Citation: Yasmin Hamdy Hussien., et al. "Assessment of the Shaping Abilities of 2Shape, Neolix and Pro Taper Next Rotary Systems: A Comparative In vitro study”. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 4.4 (2020): 71-78.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2020 Yasmin Hamdy Hussien., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.