Comparative Analysis of Canal Centering Ability of Different Single File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study

Apical transportation and canal straightening with different continuously tapered rotary file systems in severely curved root canals: F6 SkyTaper and OneShape versus Mtwo

“…Thus, the two single-file instruments used in the present study respected the original canal curvature as well as the rotary full-sequence NiTi system Mtwo. For OneShape, this observation is in agreement with the results of previous studies in which only the OneShape instrument size 25 was used without the additional use of an 'Apical' instrument (B€ urklein et al 2013, Capar et al 2014, Agarwal et al 2015, Deepak et al 2015. However, according to other investigations, reciprocating single-file systems caused less canal transportation than OneShape (Dhingra et al 2015, Saber et al 2015.…”

“…Lemgo, Germany) belong to this group of rotary single-file systems and several studies have reported that they respected canal curvature well (B€ urklein et al 2013), caused only minimal canal transportation even in severely or double-curved canals (B€ urklein et al 2014b, Agarwal et al 2015, Saleh et al 2015, were safe to use (B€ urklein et al 2013), extruded less debris apically than reciprocating single-file systems (B€ urklein et al 2014a, Nayak et al 2014, Caviedes-Bucheli et al 2016) and showed were associated with good cleaning efficiency in terms of debris and smear layer removal (Dagna et al 2016). Meanwhile, the OneShape system has been complemented by two instruments to allow wider apical canal preparation and a third full rotary NiTi single-file system (F6 SkyTaper; Komet/Brasseler) has been launched recently.…”

Comparison of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Xp Shaper, Waveone and Oneshape: A Cone Beam Computed Tomography Study of Curved Root Canals

“…Agarwal et al (17) showed that at 3-mm above the apex ProTaper and WaveOne groups showed transportation towards the lateral side of the canal curvature while the OneShape group remained centred, which collaborate with the results of this study. This result differs from previous studies that indicate that the apical segment usually has more canal transportation toward the outside of the curve (25) .…”

“…While The results of our investigation cannot be compared directly with those of Azim et al (5) because of the different file systems used, both results are consistent, they revealed that XP Shaper was superior to Vortex Blue in terms of shaping ability, where the file created nonuniform preparation adapting to the complex canal anatomy Our results came in agreement with Agarwal et al (17) and Alrahabi and Alkady (18) , who showed no statistically significant difference between WaveOne and OneShape instruments in canal transportation. You et al (19) reported similar transportation for reciprocation motion and conventional continuous rotation technique Also, Capar et al (20) investigated six rotary file systems (ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, classical OneShape, Reciproc, Twisted File Adaptive, SM2, and WaveOne) and reported no significant difference among them in terms of transportation and canal curvature.…”

“…The finding of this research is consistent with previous results obtained by different authors, Saleh et al (30) who showed that canals prepared with the F360 and OneShape systems were better centered than those prepared with Reciproc and WaveOne systems. Agarwal et al (17) showed that OneShape group had less transportation and remained more centered than WaveOne group, however the differences were not statistically significant, whereas its contradicted by those of Dhingra et al (22) , and Tambe et al (21) who showed the superiority of WaveOne system over OnesShape in terms of centering ability.…”