Evaluation of shaping ability of different glide path instruments: a micro-computed tomography study

Background This study aimed to compare the shaping ability of different instruments, TruNatomy Glider (TRN-G), WaveOne Gold Glider (WOG-G), and ProGlider (Pro-G) using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT). Methods The mesial canals of 27 mandibular molars with two separate mesial canals and moderate curvature were included in this study [n = 27 mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual (ML) root canal]. According to the manufacturer's instructions, the glide path was created with TRN-G, WOG-G, and Pro-G glide path instruments (n = 9 MB and ML root canal in each group). Micro-CT scanning was performed before and after preparation. Mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) transportation and the centering ratio were measured at three levels within the canal (3, 5 and 7 mm). A three-way robust ANOVA was used to compare the parameters. Results TRN-G showed significantly greater transportation in the MD direction than the other instruments throughout the root canal (overall root canal) (p < 0.05). The best centering ability in the BL direction was shown by the WOG-G, regardless of level within the canal and canal distinction (MB vs. ML) (p < 0.05). There was no significant difference between groups according to the level within the canal and canal parameters (p > 0.05). Whether the root canal was MB or ML did not affect centering or transportation (p > 0.05). Conclusions Glide path instruments can be used to shape moderately curved canals with minimal apical transportation and better centering ability. All three tested glide path files can used safely before the shaping file.

Automated summary

This study compared the shaping ability of different instruments using micro-CT scanning and found that glide path instruments can effectively shape moderately curved canals with minimal apical transportation and better centering ability. TruNatomy Glider showed greater transportation in the mesiodistal direction, while WaveOne Gold Glider had the best centering ability in the buccolingual direction. Canal distinction (MB vs. ML) did not significantly affect centering or transportation.