• Users Online: 26
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 16  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 176-182

Shaping ability of different root canal preparation systems

Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

Date of Submission23-Jan-2019
Date of Acceptance14-May-2019
Date of Web Publication28-Feb-2020

Correspondence Address:
Dina A. Attia
Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University, Tanta
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/tdj.tdj_6_19

Rights and Permissions

To evaluate centering ability, amount of removed dentin of hand NiTi Flex K-files, ProTaper Universal system, OneShape, and WaveOne system in curved root canals.
Materials and methods
Forty extracted human premolars with a range of canal curvature (21–39°) were used. Samples were randomly divided into four groups (n = 10). Group 1: NiTi Flex (control group), group 2: ProTaper, group 3: OneShape, and group 4: WaveOne Primary. Centering ability of each instrument was evaluated using superimposed standardized preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation cone-beam computed tomography images recorded at three root canal levels (3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex). Amount of removed dentin was calculated by differences between preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation root canal volumes.
WaveOne system showed the highest mean centering ratios at all tested canal levels in both directions. Apical thirds of all groups showed the highest centering ratios while the coronal showed the lowest. ProTaper system group recorded significantly highest amount of root dentin removal compared to other groups.
Reciprocating WaveOne files had more centering ability than other tested instruments. ProTaper Universal system removed significantly high amount of dentin in comparison to other systems.

Keywords: centering ability, OneShape, ProTaper Universal, WaveOne

How to cite this article:
Attia DA, Alhadainy HA, Darrag AM, Ghoneim WM. Shaping ability of different root canal preparation systems. Tanta Dent J 2019;16:176-82

How to cite this URL:
Attia DA, Alhadainy HA, Darrag AM, Ghoneim WM. Shaping ability of different root canal preparation systems. Tanta Dent J [serial online] 2019 [cited 2020 Jul 6];16:176-82. Available from: http://www.tmj.eg.net/text.asp?2019/16/4/176/279731

  Introduction Top

Successful root canal treatment depends on the chemo-mechanical continuously tapering preparation with homogeneous dentin removal without excessive wear of root structures[1],[2]. Maintaining the original canal anatomy by uniformly preparing all surfaces of the canal is one of the most important principles of shaping the root canal system to prevent procedural errors such as zipping, ledging, perforations, and apical transportation that can occur along with the loss of working length (WL)[3]. However, prevention of these undesirable consequences is a great challenge, especially in severely curved canals[1].

Centering ability is an essential feature of instruments to obtain uniform preparation, avoiding deviation of canal walls and apical stop[4]. It can be influenced by the instruments characteristics, such as alloy composition, cross-section, tapering, tip design, manufacturing method, type of movement, and rotation angle in addition to root canal anatomy [4–10].

ProTaper Universal (PTU) rotary file system is considered as a common multi-file NiTi rotary system which is made from a conventional superelastic NiTi wire[11],[12] with a convex triangular cross-sectional design and progressive taper that allows efficient movement and cutting ability to flare the canal more coronally.

The use of NiTi engine-driven single files in root canal preparation has increased with advantages of lower cost, saving time[13],[14], reduction of instrument fatigue and possible cross-contamination[12]. OneShape system (OS), composed of a 55-NiTi alloy, is a single instrument that features continuous rotation for performing a complete root canal preparation. The instrument has a #25 initial diameter and 0.06 mm taper and presents variable cross-sections across the length of its active portion[15].

A new type of instrumentation was suggested, based on alternated movement, known as reciprocation[16]. The reciprocation working motion is an evolution of the balanced force technique consists of a counterclockwise (cutting direction) with greater angle than the clockwise motion (release of the instrument) so, the file continuously move toward the apex promoting a safer use in curved canals[17]. Reciprocating mode of rotation has been introduced recently with the intent to extend the lifespan of NiTi instruments and its resistance to fatigue in comparison to continuous rotation[17],[18].

WaveOne (WO) NiTi file system is one of single reciprocating file systems which consist of three single use files: small for fine canals, primary for the majority of canals, and large for large canals. This file is made of heat-treated NiTi Memory-Wire (M-Wire), which is more flexible and fatigue resistant than conventionally martensitic NiTi files[19],[20].

Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) has been suggested for assessing the tomography of canal walls as it is a nondestructive technique which provides three-dimensional (3D) reproduction of the tooth and allows better preoperative and postoperative evaluation of morphological changes in the root canal trajectory[21] for better assessment of root curvatures and canal transportation[3].

Limited information exists on the effect of multi-file and single-file systems with different cutting motions on the canal geometry. Therefore, the current study was designed to evaluate centering ability, amount of removed dentin of four preparation systems (PTU, OS, and WO) which are different in their design, number of files, metallurgies and kinematics, in comparison to hand NiTi Flex K-file system in curved root canals.

  Materials and Methods Top

Approval of this research was obtained from Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University. The purpose of the present study was explained to the patients and informed consents were obtained to use their extracted teeth on the research according to the guidelines on human research adopted by the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty of Dentistry, Tanta University.

Sample selection and preparation

Forty freshly extracted, fully developed human premolars with single root canals were collected. The teeth were extracted for orthodontic or periodontal reasons. Teeth were thoroughly cleaned, polished, rinsed under running water and stored in sterile saline solution at 4°C until use[22]. The teeth were selected with similar range of canal curvature (21–39°), which was measured according to Schneider's method[23] using a special software (SUNI Medical Imaging Inc., San Jose, California, USA).

All teeth were decoronated using water cooled low speed diamond disc (Dica, Dendia, USA) leaving 13 ± 1 mm long roots. Canals diameter were standardized by selecting roots fitting initial apical file #15 K-type (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). The WL of each canal was determined by measuring the length of K-type file size #10 at the apical foramen minus 1 mm[24].

Roots were coded and randomly divided into four equal experimental groups (n = 10) according to instrumentation system. All roots were aligned in four parallel rows and fixed with transparent self-cured acrylic resin (Acrostone Dental Factory, Egypt). Preinstrumentation CBCT scanning was done using CBCT machine (Scanora 3D Soredex, Helsinki, Finland) with voxel size 0.25 mm, a current intensity 16 mA, Kilovoltage 85 Kvp and a focal spot size 0.5 mm with target angle 5°. The scanning time was 10 s of pulsed exposure resulting in an effective exposure time 2.5 s to scan field of view of 7.5 cm height × 14.5 cm and width × 14.5 cm depth.

Root canal instrumentation

In group 1 (control group): 10 root canals were instrumented using NiTi Flex hand K-files (Dentsply Maillefer) up to (#35/0.02) master apical file in a crown down manner. While in group 2; root canals were prepared with PTU rotary system (Dentsply Maillefer) with a continuous rotation movement up to F2 (#25/0.08). Root canals in group 3 were prepared using OS single rotary files (#25/0.06) (MicroMega, Besancon, France) using an in-and-out passive movement while performing an upward circumferential filing movement and in Group IVWO Primary reciprocating files (#25/0.08) (Dentsply Maillefer) were used in a progressive up and down pecking motions until the file reached full WL without apical pressure.

For rotary and reciprocating groups, glide path was created with hand St-St k-files #20 till the full WL, each file was coated with Glyde file lubricant (Dentsply Maillefer) and used in slow downward movement without pressure. X-Smart Plus endodontic electro-motor (Dentsply Maillefer) was used and programed according to each file system. In multifiles groups (groups 1 and 2), each file sequence was used for preparing five canals then discarded[25]. In single-file groups (groups 3 and 4), single file was used for a single root canal preparation then discarded[26]. All root canals were irrigated with 10 ml of 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (Clorox Co., 10th of Ramadan, Egypt) solution throughout instrumentation and flushed with 5 ml of 0.9% normal saline solution (NaCl) (EL Nasr Pharmaceutical Chemicals Co., Egypt) at the end of instrumentation and dried with absorbent paper points (Diadent Group International, Burnaby, B.C. Canada)[17].

After instrumentation, the specimens were scanned using the same standers as preinstrumentation scanning. Preinstrumentation image was fused to the postinstrumentation one automatically by a software (Ondemand 3D, Seoul, South Korea) allowing the best possible accuracy. From fused image, preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation images can be obtained to record the measurement of preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation on the same plane direction and cut to ensure standardization.

On axial view of the fused CBCT image, cut lines at 3 mm (mid-apical level), 6 mm (mid-middle level) and 9 mm (mid-coronal level) from the apical end of each root in each group were determined and the measurements were recorded on the preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation images at the same cut lines.

Evaluation of centering ability

Centering ability was calculated for each section using centering ratio[27].

Where D1 is the buccolingual measurement and D2 is the mesiodistal measurement.

X1 is the shortest distance from the buccal aspect of the root to the periphery of the un-instrumented canal. X'1 is the shortest distance from the buccal aspect of the root to the periphery of the prepared canal. X2 is the shortest distance from the lingual aspect of the root to the periphery of the un-instrumented canal. X'2 is the shortest distance from the lingual aspect of the root to the periphery of the prepared canal. Y1is the shortest distance from the mesial aspect of the root to the periphery of the un-instrumented canal. Y'1 is the shortest distance from the mesial aspect of the root to the periphery of the prepared canal. Y2 is the shortest distance from the distal aspect of the root to the periphery of the un-instrumented canal. Y'2 is the shortest distance from the distal aspect of the root to the periphery of the prepared canal as shown in [Figure 1].
Figure 1: Schematic presentation of the image used in the centering ability evaluation[27].

Click here to view

According to this formula, the ratio equal 1 indicates a perfect centering ability; the closer the result is to zero, the worse is the ability of the instrument to remain centered[28]. If these numbers were unequal, the numerator for this formula was the smallest of the two numbers X1–X'1 or X2–X'2 and the same for Y1–Y'1 or Y2–Y'2[29].

Evaluation of amount of removed dentin

Preinstrumented and postinstrumented volume of each canal was measured with 3D software (Ondemand 3D) from preinstrumentation and postinstrumentation images. Volume of dentin removed during instrumentation was determined for each canal by subtracting the preinstrumented canal volume from the instrumented one in cubic millimeters.

All data were collected, tabulated and statistically analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS version 24) (SPSS Inc. Chicago, Illinois, USA). Results of centering ratio and amount of removed dentin were expressed by descriptive statistics as mean, SD. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and post-hoc test (Tukey test) was used to compare quantitative data within groups.

  Results Top

Centering ability

Mean ± SD of centering ratio of four tested groups at both directions D1 and D2 are expressed in [Table 1] and [Table 2]. One-way ANOVA revealed significant differences among four groups at the three levels in both directions. So, Tukey's test was performed at each tested root level for D1 and D2 and it revealed statistical significant differences between WO versus hand NiTi Flex files at the three tested levels, between WO versus PTU at apical and coronal levels, between OS versus hand NiTi Flex at apical and coronal levels and finally between PTU versus OS coronally.
Table 1: Mean± SD of centering ratio of four tested groups at buccolingual direction (D1) at the three tested root levels

Click here to view
Table 2: Mean± SD of centering ratio of four tested groups at mesiodistal direction (D2) at the three tested root levels

Click here to view

Results of amount of dentin removal

NiTi Flex hand K-files (group 1) recorded the least amount of removed dentin followed by OS single rotary file (group 3), WO primary reciprocating file and PTU system which showed the highest value [Figure 2]. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way ANOVA which revealed a highly statistical significant difference among four tested groups (P < 0.001).
Figure 2: Column chart of removed dentin in mm3 of the four tested groups.

Click here to view

Tukey's test was performed and it revealed statistical significant differences between group 1 versus groups 2 and 4 with P value of 0.001, 0.033, respectively, and between group 2 versus groups 3 and 4 with P value of 0.001, 0.010 respectively. However, there were no statistical significant differences between group 1 versus group 3 (P = 0.405) or between group 3 versus group 4 (P = 0.571).

  Discussion Top

Endodontic instruments should remain centered in the root canal throughout the preparation[30] otherwise, canal transportation may occurs and leads to inappropriate dentine removal, with a high risk of straightening the original canal curvature and forming ledges in the dentine wall[31],[32]. Therefore, centering ability of different instruments was tested in this study.

In the current study, different NiTi endodontic systems were tested for their features. PTU system was tested as it is widely used in many countries and constitutes a common NiTi rotary system. It is a multi-file system based on a sequence of files in different sizes and tapers, made from a conventional superelastic NiTi wire, and has a convex triangular cross-sectional design and progressive taper[2],[33]. In addition hand NiTi Flex file system was involved in the study because it is popular and considered as a standard method of preparing root canals[34] so, it was used as a control group.

Attention was directed to WO and OS NiTi files because they are sterile single-file systems having nonworking safety tip and variable cross-sections along the blade of the instrument. At the same time, they work with different mode of rotation; reciprocation WO and continuous rotation OS[34],[35].

CBCT image technology was used in this study as it provides a precise, reproducible, three-dimensional assessment of alterations in dentine thickness and root canal volume without destructive sectioning of the specimens [36–38]. It is also useful in detecting deviations, transportation[39] and centering ability of endodontic instruments[40] without examiner interference[41].

Primary WO file had better centering ability than other tested systems at all tested root canal levels which might be returned to its design of reverse helix with two distinct changing cross-sections along the working part, which could decrease core diameter with increased flexibility of the file[42],[43]. Additionally, WO files are manufactured from M-Wire NiTi alloy[44], which is more flexible and fatigue resistant variant of NiTi alloy[17],[20]. Additionally, reciprocating motion proved to be correlated to a more centered preparation compared with continuous rotating motion[14],[15]. This was supported by Berutti et al.[45].

Hand NiTi Flex files showed the least centering ability at apical and middle levels which may be due to the aggressive cutting tip of NiTi Flex hand files[46] and the absence of radial land[47]. These findings were in agreement with Glossen et al.[48] and Taşdemir et al.[49] who found that rotary NiTi instruments produced more centered preparation and less apical transportation than hand NiTi systems in curved root canals. In contrary, Nagaraja and Sreenivasa Murthy[6] found that, using hand NiTi K-files produced lesser canal transportation and more centering ability than other rotary systems, these different results may be due to using balanced force technique with hand NiTi files.

On the other hand, NiTi Flex files revealed better performance at coronal portion of the canal, with better centering ability than PTU system. This may be related to the fact that NiTi Flex system with its ISO taper (0.02) allows less aggressive cutting at the coronal portion and as a result minimizes canal transportation and increase centering ability[46]. These results were in agreement with Nagaraja and Murthy[50].

PTU system exhibited significantly inferior results compared to WO because it has sharp cutting edges, convex triangular cross-section, progressive taper sequence along the length of their cutting blades [51–53] especially the large increase in taper from 0.04 to 0.08 mm from S2 to F2[54] and some rigidity due to the considerable amount of metal in its structure. Several researches confirmed these results[2],[10],[20] while, McRay et al.[55] in a study based on μCT imaging reported no statistically significant difference in the canal centering ability of WO and PTU systems which could be attributed to the variation in root canal preparation where coronal pre-flaring with SX was not carried out.

Centering ability of OS system was significantly better than PTU and hand NiTi Flex files, which may be due to the unique asymmetrical cutting profile of OS files, which improves its snake-like movement into the canal and therefore may cause less transportation and preserves the original canal shape[52],[56],[57]. In addition to its safety tip of size 25 with continuous taper of 0.06 in comparison to 8% taper of F2 PTU file. These results were in agreement with Rolly et al.[58] and Ghobashy et al.[59].

It was found that, the apical level showed the highest centering ratio while the coronal level recorded the least one which may be attributed to the cross-sectional configuration of the premolars canals as the more round apical root canal section is associated with better adaptation of the file motion within the canal with more centered preparation[60],[61] and may be also related to highly tapered coronal cross-section of F2 and WO Primary files which is 0.08, OS files which is 0.06 with increased core diameter of the files [15, 29]. These results were supported by the studies of Jain et al.[62] and Rolly et al.[58].

It was found that, PTU system removed significantly the highest amount of dentin compared with the other three systems which could be attributed to the progressively tapered design of the PTU along with the sharp cutting edges of the convex triangular cross-sectional design[6]. These results are supported by the results of Franco et al.[63] that indicated the highest canal enlargement was produced by the continuous rotation compared to the reciprocating group. Every three sequential reciprocating cycles are equivalent to one complete rotational cycle[62].

Furthermore, WO Primary files design is characterized by fixed tapers of 8% from D1 to D3, whereas from D4 to D16, they have a unique progressively decreasing percentage tapered design which play essential role in preserving the remaining dentin in the coronal two thirds of the canal[64]. This was in agreement with Dioguardi et al.[65] and Kanagasingam et al.[66], Sharma et al.[12].

Regarding OS file system, it consists of only one instrument with a safety tip with continues taper of 0.06[67] compared to 0.08 taper of F2 file could be the cause of significant difference between the two systems[68]. These findings are in agreement with Capar et al.[69] and Harandi et al.[70].

It was found that, Hand NiTi Flex K-file removed the least amount of canal dentin which was significantly different than PTU and WO. This could be related to the difference in taper of the hand NiTi files which is ISO 0.02 which allow less aggressive cutting compared to the larger tapers of PTU and WO systems[46],[71],[72]. These results were confirmed with El Ayouti et al.[30]. However, the disagreement found by Yin et al.[73] who found hand NiTi files removed more dentin than PTU might be as a result of using Gates Glidden drill with hand NiTi Flex for coronal flaring.

  Conclusion Top

Under the conditions of the present study, it was concluded that:

  1. None of the tested instruments remained perfectly centralized within the root canals.
  2. Reciprocating WO files have more centering ability than other tested file systems.
  3. All tested root canal preparation systems remained more centralized apically than coronally.
  4. PTU system removed more dentin during root canal preparation than other tested systems.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Mitra G, Sharma V, Sachdeva J, Singla M, Taneja K, Bhatnagar A. To evaluate and compare canal transportation, canal-centering ability, and vertical root fracture resistance of teeth prepared with three different rotary file systems: anin vitro study. Endodontology 2017; 29:53–59.  Back to cited text no. 1
  [Full text]  
Sajad M, Ahmed A, Sagar M, Kamaljeet M. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of single file system versus multiple file system in root canals of mandibular molars: an in-vitro study. Int J App Dent Scie 2018; 4:17–20.  Back to cited text no. 2
Elsherief SM, Zayet MK, Hamouda IM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res 2013; 27:326–335.  Back to cited text no. 3
Thompson M, Sidow SJ, Lindsey K, Chuang A, McPherson JCIII. Evaluation of a new filing system's ability to maintain canal morphology. J Endod 2014; 40:867–870.  Back to cited text no. 4
Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centering and shaping ability using three nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (uCT). Int Endod J 2012; 45:514–523.  Back to cited text no. 5
Nagaraja S, Sreenivasa Murthy BV. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: anin vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2010; 13:16–22.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC, Min KS. Comparison of the centering ability of WaveOne and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38:21–25.  Back to cited text no. 7
Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17:35–39.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Saber Sel D, Abu El Sadat SM. Effect of altering the reciprocation range on the fatigue life and the shaping ability of WaveOne nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2013; 39:685–688.  Back to cited text no. 9
Goldberg M, Dahan S, Machtou P. Centering ability and influence of experience when using WaveOne single-file technique in simulated canals. Int J Dent 2012; 2012:1–7.  Back to cited text no. 10
Barbosa-Ribeiro M, Albergaria SJ, Malvar MdFG, Crusoé-Rebello IM, Gomes BPFdA, Carvalho FBd. Canal transportation and centering ability of curved root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems. Braz J Oral Scie 2015; 14:214–218.  Back to cited text no. 11
Sharma N, Sarfi S, Sharma A, Grewal MS. Evaluation of canal preparation with rotary and hand Niti files in curved root canals using cone beam computed tomography: anin vitro study. Int Arch Integ Med 2017; 4:45–55.  Back to cited text no. 12
Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J 2008; 41:339–344.  Back to cited text no. 13
Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2015; 48:131–136.  Back to cited text no. 14
Dhingra A, Ruhal N, Miglani A. Evaluation of single file systems Reciproc, Oneshape, and WaveOne using cone beam computed tomography-anin vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015; 9:30–34.  Back to cited text no. 15
Laurindo FV, de Figueiredo JAP. Reciprocating versus rotary instruments: a review. Rev Odonto Cienc 2016; 31:135–139.  Back to cited text no. 16
Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012; 45:449–461.  Back to cited text no. 17
Pedulla E, Grande NM, Plotino G, Gambarini G, Rapisarda E. Influence of continuous or reciprocating motion on cyclic fatigue resistance of 4 different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2013; 39:258–261.  Back to cited text no. 18
Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y, Haapasalo M. Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011; 37:997–1001.  Back to cited text no. 19
Pereira ESJ, Peixoto IFC, Viana ACD. Physical and mechanical properties of a thermomechanically treated NiTi wire used in the manufacture of rotary endodontic instruments. Int Endod J 2012; 45:469–474.  Back to cited text no. 20
Oget D, Braux J, Compas C, Guigand M. Comparative analysis of root canal changes after preparation with three systems using cone-beam computed tomography. Giornale Italiano di Endodonzia 2017; 31:83–88.  Back to cited text no. 21
Carvalho AS, Camargo CHR, Valera MC, Camargo SEA, Mancini MNG. Smear layer removal by auxiliary chemical substances in biomechanical preparation: a scanning electron microscope study. J Endod 2008; 34:1396–1400.  Back to cited text no. 22
Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol 1971; 32:271–275.  Back to cited text no. 23
Herbert J, Bruder M, Braunsteiner J, Altenburger MJ, Wrbas KT. Apical quality and adaptation of resilon, EndoREZ, and guttaflow root canal fillings in combination with a noncompaction technique. J Endod 2009; 35:261–264.  Back to cited text no. 24
Mollo A, Botti G, Prinicipi Goldoni N, Randellini E, Paragliola R, Chazine M, et al. Efficacy of two Ni-Ti systems and hand files for removing gutta-percha from root canals. Int Endod J 2012; 45:1–6.  Back to cited text no. 25
Kocak MM, Kocak S, Turker SA, Saglam BC. Cleaning efficacy of reciprocal and rotary systems in the removal of root canal filling material. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19:184–188.  Back to cited text no. 26
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Aguiar CM, Donida FA, Câmara AC, Frazão M. Changes in root canal anatomy using three nickel-titanium rotary system: a cone beam computed tomography analysis. Braz J Oral Sci 2013; 12:307–312.  Back to cited text no. 27
Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary protaper, one shape system and wave one system using cone beam computed tomography: anin vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17:561–565.  Back to cited text no. 28
  [Full text]  
Gandhi A, Gandhi T. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of hand Protaper files and rotary Protaper files by using micro computed tomography. RSBO 2011; 8:375–380.  Back to cited text no. 29
El Ayouti A, Dima E, Judenhofer MS, Löst C, Pichler BJ. Increased apical enlargement contributes to excessive dentin removal in curved root canals: a stepwise microcomputed tomography study. J Endod 2011; 37:1580–1584.  Back to cited text no. 30
Jafarzadeh H, Abbott PV. Ledge formation: review of a great challenge in endodontics. J Endod 2007; 33:1155–1162.  Back to cited text no. 31
Loizides A, Eliopoulos D, Kontakiotis E. Root canal transportation with a Ni-Ti rotary file system and stainless steel hand files in simulated root canals. Quintessence Int 2006; 37:3–7.  Back to cited text no. 32
Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod 2010; 36:904–907.  Back to cited text no. 33
Parashos P, Messer HH. The diffusion of innovation in dentistry: a review using rotary nickel-titanium technology as an example. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2006; 101:395–401.  Back to cited text no. 34
De-Deus G, Barino B, Marins J, Magalhães K, Thuanne E, Kfir A. Self-adjusting file cleaning-shaping-irrigation system optimizes the filling of oval-shaped canals with thermoplasticized gutta-percha. J Endod 2012; 38:846–849.  Back to cited text no. 35
Hartmann MSM, Barletta FB, Fontanella VRC, Vanni JR. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: a comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007; 33:962–965.  Back to cited text no. 36
Zanette F, Grazziotin-Soares R, Flores ME, Fontanella VRC, Gavini G, Barletta FB. Apical root canal transportation and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Universal with and without PathFile. J Endod 2014; 40:688–693.  Back to cited text no. 37
Mamede-Neto I, Borges AH, Guedes OA, de Oliveira D, Pedro FLM, Estrela C. Root Canal transportation and centering ability of nickel-titanium rotary instruments in mandibular premolars assessed using cone-beam computed tomography. Open Dent J 2017; 11:71–76.  Back to cited text no. 38
Gao Y, Cheung GS, Shen Y, Zhou X. Mechanical behavior of ProTaper universal F2 finishing file under various curvature conditions: a finite element analysis study. J Endod 2011; 37:1446–1450.  Back to cited text no. 39
Gergi R, Arbab-Chirani R, Osta N, Naaman A. Micro–computed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium instruments. J Endod 2014; 40:1223–1227.  Back to cited text no. 40
Estrela C, Rabelo LE, de Souza JB, Alencar AH, Estrela CR, Sousa Neto MD, et al. Frequency of root canal isthmi in human permanent teeth determined by cone-beam computed tomography. J Endod 2015; 41:535–539.  Back to cited text no. 41
D'Amario M, De Angelis F, Mancino M, Frascaria M, Capogreco M, D'Arcangelo C. Canal shaping of different single-file systems in curved root canals. J Dent Sci 2017; 12:328–332.  Back to cited text no. 42
Thota MM, Kakollu S, Duvvuri M, Garikapati RB. Comparitive evaluation of canal shaping ability of three nickel titanium instrument systems using cone beam computed tomography: anin vitro study. Endodontology 2017; 29:120.  Back to cited text no. 43
  [Full text]  
Johnson E, Lloyd A, Kuttler S, Namerow K. Comparison between a novel nickel-titanium alloy and 508 nitinol on the cyclic fatigue life of ProFile 25/. 04 rotary instruments. J Endod 2008; 34:1406–1409.  Back to cited text no. 44
Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, Alovisi M, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012; 38:101–104.  Back to cited text no. 45
Saunders EM. Hand instrumentation in root canal preparation. Endod Topics 2005; 10:163–167.  Back to cited text no. 46
Pitt Ford T, Rhodes JS, Pitt Ford H. Endodontics: problem-solving in clinical practice. 2002.  Back to cited text no. 47
Glossen CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod 1995; 21:146–151.  Back to cited text no. 48
Taşdemir T, Aydemir H, Inan U, Ünal O. Canal preparation with Hero 642 rotary Ni–Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-file assessed using computed tomography. Int Endod J 2005; 38:402–408.  Back to cited text no. 49
Nagaraja S, Murthy BS. CT evaluation of canal preparation using rotary and hand NI-TI instruments: anin vitro study. J Con Dent 2010; 13:16–19.  Back to cited text no. 50
Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod 2003; 29:15–19.  Back to cited text no. 51
Hashem AA, Ghoneim AG, Lutfy RA, Foda MY, Omar GA. Geometric analysis of root canals prepared by four rotary NiTi shaping systems. J Endod 2012; 38:996–1000.  Back to cited text no. 52
Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino V, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004; 37:832–839.  Back to cited text no. 53
Javaheri HH, Javaheri GH. A comparison of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation. J Endod 2007; 33:284–286.  Back to cited text no. 54
McRay B, Cox TC, Cohenca N, Johnson JD, Paranjpe A. A micro-computed tomography-based comparison of the canal transportation and centering ability of ProTaper Universal rotary and WaveOne reciprocating files. Quintessence Int 2014; 45:101–108.  Back to cited text no. 55
Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2013; 46:590–597.  Back to cited text no. 56
Alrahabi M, Alkady A. Comparison of the shaping ability of various nickel–titanium file systems in simulated curved canals. Saudi Endod J 2017; 7:97–101.  Back to cited text no. 57
  [Full text]  
Rolly S, Agarwal JA, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative analysis of canal centering ability of different single file systems using cone beam computed tomography: an in-vitro study. J Clinic Diag Res 2015; 9:6–10.  Back to cited text no. 58
Ghobashy AM, Nagy MM, Obeid MF. Cleaning ability of single-file preparation technique in curved canals. ENDO 2016; 10:83–87.  Back to cited text no. 59
Ye J, Gao Y. Metallurgical characterization of M-Wire nickel-titanium shape memory alloy used for endodontic rotary instruments during low-cycle fatigue. J Endod 2012; 38:105–107.  Back to cited text no. 60
Zvi M, Michael S, Anda K. The role of mechanical instrumentation in the cleaning of root canals. Endod Topics 2013; 29:87–109.  Back to cited text no. 61
Jain A, Asrani H, Singhal AC, Bhatia TK, Sharma V, Jaiswal P. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between WaveOne and ProTaper rotary by using cone beam computed tomography: anin vitro study. J Con Dent 2016; 19:440–446.  Back to cited text no. 62
Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickel-titanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011; 37:1398–1401.  Back to cited text no. 63
Karova E, Topalova-Pirinska S. Wave one and one shape files: Survival in severely curved artificial canals. Glob J Med Res 2014; 4.  Back to cited text no. 64
Dioguardi M, Troiano G, Laino L, Russo LL, Giannatempo G, Lauritano F, et al. ProTaper and WaveOne systems three-dimensional comparison of device parameters after the shaping technique. A micro-CT study on simulated root canals. IJCEM 2015; 8:17830–17837.  Back to cited text no. 65
Kanagasingam S, Asem B, Zainuddin NA, Nordin R, Patel S. Micro computed tomography evaluation of canal preparation with ProTaper, WaveOne and Reciproc rotary file systems. DM 2016; 1:55–59.  Back to cited text no. 66
Bandekar S, Medha A, Patil S, Sathawane N, Aurangabadkar A.In vitro comparison of cleaning ability of oneshape and waveone rotary systems. Int J Cur Res 2016; 8:39833–39836.  Back to cited text no. 67
Bürklein S, Benten S, Schäfer E. Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo. Int Endod J 2014; 47:405–409.  Back to cited text no. 68
Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, Arslan H, Ertas ET. Comparative study of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root canals. J Endod 2014; 40:852–856.  Back to cited text no. 69
Harandi A, Maleki FM, Moudi E, Ehsani M, Khafri S. CBCT assessment of root dentine removal by gates-glidden drills and two engine-driven root preparation systems. Iran Endod J 2017; 12:29–33.  Back to cited text no. 70
Ruddle CJ. The protaper technique. Endod Topics 2005; 10:187–190.  Back to cited text no. 71
Ruddle CJ. Endodontic canal preparation: WaveOne single file technique. Dentistry Today 2012; 33:1–7.  Back to cited text no. 72
Yin X, Cheung GS, Zhang C, Masuda YM, Kimura Y, Matsumoto K. Micro-computed tomographic comparison of nickel-titanium rotary versus traditional instruments in C-shaped root canal system. J Endod 2010; 36:708–712.  Back to cited text no. 73


  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]

  [Table 1], [Table 2]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  In this article
Materials and Me...
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded98    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal