Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of V-Taper 2H, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro Study

Shenoi, Pratima; Luniya, Disha Anand; Badole, Gautam; Makade, Chetana Sachin; Kubde, Rajesh; Khode, Rajiv T

doi:10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_34_16

Cited by 12 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This agrees with another study that reported XP generated less canal transportation than WOG at the 7-mm level using the micro-CT method [32]. And Shenoi et al also demonstrated the superior centering ability of VT compared to ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM in curved canals [33]. Gundappa et al found that the taper was one of the main factors related to the occurrence of canal transportation in a meta-analysis of the centering ability of NiTi instruments [34].…”

Section: Shaping Abilitysupporting

confidence: 80%

A comparison of five single-file systems in the preparation of severely curved root canals

Liu

Chen

Tang

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Shaping Abilitysupporting

confidence: 80%

A comparison of five single-file systems in the preparation of severely curved root canals

Liu

Chen

Tang

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may be due to PTN modified tip design and a brushing motion, away from external root concavities, to facilitate flute unloading and apical file progression[ 24 ] which leads to more centered preparation and its M-wire alloy property which increases flexibility[ 16 ] and a reducing taper of PTN file in coronal portion leads to more flexibility in the apical region[ 25 ] which causes less apical transportation. Even the apical 3 mm of the PTN instrument has square cross-section which gives more core strength in narrow apical part.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Shenoi et al . [ 25 ] concluded that PTN and V-taper showed no significant transportation in apical region and V-taper showed better centering ability than PTN and Hyflex. He attributed this to reduced shaft diameter and less cross-section area of V-taper file.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative evaluation of apical transportation and canal centric ability in apical region of newer nickel-titanium file systems using cone-beam computed tomography on extracted molars: An In Vitro study

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Objective in root canal preparation is to develop a shape that tapers from apical to coronal, maintaining the original canal shape. With advent of instruments manufactured from nickel-titanium (NiTi) alloys, there was a significant improvement of quality of root canal shaping, with predictable results and less iatrogenic damage.Aim:The aim of the study was to evaluate the canal centric ability and apical transportation in apical region of newer NiTi file system in root canal using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) on extracted molars.Materials and Methods:Root canal of thirty extracted human permanent teeth with mature root apices with 20°–40° of curvature were collected and divided into three groups after initial bio-mechanical preparation: Group 1: canal prepared using ProTaperNext (PTN) file system; Group 2: canal prepared using Mani silk system; and Group 3: canal prepared using V-taper file system. All samples were scanned before and after biomechanical preparation using CBCT. The data collected were evaluated using the Kruskal–Wallis analysis of variance test and Mann–Whitney U-test.Results:It was observed that in apical region Group I (PTN) showed significantly lower mean apical transportation and canal centric ability as compared to Group II (Mani Silk) and Group III (V-taper).Conclusion:It was concluded that PTN rotary system has no canal transportation and maintained centric ability in comparison to Mani and V-taper rotary file system in apical region of curved root canal.

show abstract

“…To analyze canal preparation (wear, transportation, and centering ability), cone beam computed tomography was used in this study and in those by Shah et al [15], Shenoi et al [16], and Mamede-Neto et al [17], who all analyzed the same factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Analysis of preparation time, wear, transportation and centering ability of Flexofile and Prodesign® M manual instruments in curved root canals preparation

Zarpelon¹,

Barp²,

Galafassi³

et al. 2018

Rev. Odonto Ciênc. (Online)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: This in vitro study aimed to evaluate preparation time, wear, transportation, and centering ability of two manual instruments, namely Flexofile and Prodesign® M, in curved root canal preparation.METHODS: Forty mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals of the first or second lower molars were used, with standard length, degree, and radius of curvature among all samples. The canals were randomly divided into two experimental groups (n=20) according to the preparation instrument analyzed. The preparations were performed by a single operator. The preparation time was controlled, and the values obtained were analyzed. To verify the wear, transportation, and centering ability of the instruments, tomography images were taken before and after instrumentation. The analysis was performed using axial sections previously identified at 2 mm below the tooth apex with the aid of the OnDemand3DTM Dental program. For statistical analysis, Student’s t-test was used, with a significance level of 5%.RESULTS: The time required to prepare root canals was lesser using Prodesign® M instruments than using Flexofile instruments. Regarding tooth wear, no statistical difference was observed. However, Flexofile instruments had a low centralization capacity in root canal preparation, and there is a trend of transport in the mesial direction of the root canal.CONCLUSION: Although no statistical difference was observed between the two instruments, the Prodesign® M instruments had a better cantering ability in the preparation. As well as, the time required to prepare the root canals was inferior when Prodesign® M was used.

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of V-Taper 2H, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro Study

Abstract: The canal preparation with V-Taper 2H showed lesser transportation and better centering ability than PN and Hyflex CM.

Cited by 12 publications

References 1 publication

A comparison of five single-file systems in the preparation of severely curved root canals

A comparison of five single-file systems in the preparation of severely curved root canals

Comparative evaluation of apical transportation and canal centric ability in apical region of newer nickel-titanium file systems using cone-beam computed tomography on extracted molars: An In Vitro study

Analysis of preparation time, wear, transportation and centering ability of Flexofile and Prodesign® M manual instruments in curved root canals preparation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About