Micro-computed Evaluation of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of 5 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems with Different Metallurgical Properties and Surface Treatments in Curved Root Canals

Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate the transportation and centering ability of 5 different rotary and reciprocating file systems with different metallurgical properties and surface treatments in curved root canals. Methods: Fifty mesiobuccal round canals of upper molars with a curvature of 25 degrees-40 degrees were assigned to 5 experimental groups (n = 12) according to the instrumentation system used: ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, York, PA), Reciproc Blue (RCB [VDW, Munich, Germany]), Reciproc (VDW), TruNatomy (TRN [Dentsply Sirona]), and XP-endo Shaper (FKG, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland). During instrumentation, 5 mL 2.5% sodium hypochlorite was used in each root canal. The final irrigation protocol included 15% EDTA followed by sodium hypochlorite irrigation. The micro-computed tomographic scanning of the samples was performed before and after instrumentation to analyze the transportation and centering ability at 3 canal levels. The results were analyzed with the 1-way analysis of variance test with the corresponding post hoc test. Results: Overall, RCB caused significantly more canal transportation compared with the other techniques (P < .05). There were no significant differences between the other techniques (P > .05). ProTaper Next had a significantly better ability to stay within the central axis of the root canal compared with the Reciproc and RCB techniques (P = .046 and P = .017, respectively). In the apical third, all techniques caused similar apical transportation and centering ability (P > .05). In the middle and cervical parts of the canal, the RCB caused significantly greater canal transportation than the other techniques (P < .05). Conclusions: Under the limitations of this study, all tested techniques had similar transportation and centering abilities in the apical part of the canal. However, the overall results and those in the middle and coronal parts of the canal indicated that reciprocating instruments resulted in more canal transportation and less centered preparations.

Automated summary

The study concluded that all tested techniques had similar transportation and centering abilities in the apical part of the canal, but reciprocating instruments resulted in more canal transportation and less centered preparations overall, as well as in the middle and coronal parts of the canal.