Background The ex vivo study is to compare the root canal preparation outcomes achieved by five nickel–titanium single-file instrumentation systems (M3-L, Reciproc Blue, V-Taper 2H, WaveOne Gold, XP-endo Shaper) in severely curved molar root canals. Methods A total of 60 root canals were selected from extracted human molar teeth with curvatures ranging from 25° to 50° and divided into five groups based on the instrumentation system employed (n = 12). Before and after root canal preparation, a Micro-CT scan was taken, and pre- and post-operative data were analyzed to evaluate the following parameters: volume increment of root canals (VI), untouched root canal areas (UTA), and canal transportation (CT). Apically extruded debris (AD) was collected during preparation. After that, all samples were separated into two parts and examined respectively by scanning electron microscope (SEM) to assess cleaning ability. Data were statistically analyzed with ANOVA (UTA, AD, VI) or Kruskal–Wallis test (CT, SEM-score), the level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Results There were no significant differences between the five systems regarding the AD, VI, and UTA parameters (P > 0.05). In terms of CT, no significant difference was noted at the straight section of canal and apical levels, while XP-endo Shaper showed less canal transportation than M3-L at the level of curved vertex (P < 0.05), and the centering ability of V-Taper 2H was significantly better than WaveOne Gold at the initial point of bending (P < 0.05). Debris and smear layers were present on the canal walls of all specimens, the apical thirds of the canal presented higher SEM scores than the coronal thirds in all groups (P < 0.05). Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper showed fewer smear scores than WaveOne Gold in the apical thirds (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively), and no statistical difference was found between other groups in the middle and coronal thirds. Conclusion The five single-file systems evaluated performed equally in apically debris extrusion, dentin removal, and untouched root canal areas, while XP-endo Shaper and V-Taper 2H resulted in less canal transportation compared to M3-L and WaveOne Gold. Regarding cleaning ability, Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper were associated with less smear layer than WaveOne Gold in the apical thirds.

Background To evaluate the root canal preparation outcomes achieved by five nickel-titanium single-file instrumentation systems (M3-L, Reciproc Blue, V-Taper 2H, WaveOne Gold, XP-endo Shaper) in severely curved molar root canals. Methods A total of 60 root canals were selected from extracted human molar teeth with curvatures ranging from 25° to 50° and divided into five groups based on the instrumentation system employed (n = 12). Before and after root canal preparation, a Micro-CT scan was taken, and pre- and post-operative data were analyzed to evaluate the following parameters: volume increment of root canals (VI), untouched root canal areas (UTA), and canal transportation (CT). Apically extruded debris (AD) was collected during preparation. After that, all samples were separated into two parts and examined respectively by scanning electron microscope (SEM) to assess cleaning ability. Data were statistically analyzed with ANOVA (UTA, AD, VI) or Kruskal-Wallis test (CT, SEM-score), the level of significance was set at α = 0.05. Results There were no significant differences between the five systems regarding the AD, VI, and UTA parameters (P > 0.05). In terms of CT, no significant difference was noted at the straight section of canal and apical levels, while XP-endo Shaper showed less canal transportation than M3-L at the level of curved vertex (P < 0.05), and the centering ability of V-Taper 2H was significantly better than WaveOne Gold at the initial point of bending (P < 0.05). Debris and smear layers were present on the canal walls of all specimens, the apical thirds of the canal presented higher SEM scores than the coronal thirds in all groups (P < 0.05). Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper showed fewer smear scores than WaveOne Gold in the apical thirds (P < 0.01 and P < 0.05, respectively), and no statistical difference was found between other groups in the middle and coronal thirds. Conclusions The five single-file systems evaluated performed equally in apically debris extrusion, dentin removal, and untouched root canal areas, while XP-endo Shaper and V-Taper 2H resulted in less canal transportation compared to M3-L and WaveOne Gold. Regarding cleaning ability, Reciproc Blue and XP-endo Shaper were associated with less smear layer than WaveOne Gold in the apical thirds.