Comparison of Centering Ability and Canal Transportation of TruNatomy Files with Different File Systems

Authors

Ecehan Hazar, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, TurkeyFollow
Gediz Geduk, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
Ezgi Coşkun, Dental specialist, İstanbul, Turkey
Sibel Koçak, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
Baran Can Sağlam, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey
Mustafa Murat Koçak, Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Zonguldak Bülent Ecevit University, Zonguldak, Turkey

Abstract

Objective: This study aims to evaluate the centering ability and canal transportation of the ProTaper Next, One Curve, and TruNatomy instruments in curved root canals. Methods: Forty-five curved mesiobuccal canals of human mandibular molar teeth were selected, randomly divided into 3 groups, and prepared using the ProTaper Next, One Curve, and TruNatomy files. Cone Beam Computed Tomography images of the cross-sectional planes at 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm from the apical foramen were determined before and after the preparation. For each specified millimeter canal transportation and centering ability were measured. Statistical analysis was performed and compared all groups. Results: No significant differences were observed between the groups or root canal levels in both canal transportation and centering ability (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The TruNatomy system demonstrated comparable results with both predecessor ProTaper Next and One Curve single-file systems.

References

1. Nazari Moghaddam K, Mehran M, Farajian Zadeh H. Root canal cleaning efficacy of rotary and hand files instrumentation in primary molars. Iran Endod J. 2009; 4(2):53-7.

2. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: A review. J Endod. 2004; 30(8):559-67.

3. Abou-Rass M, Frank AL, Glick DH. The anticurvature filing method to prepare the curved root canal. J Am Dent Assoc. 1980; 101(5):792-4.

4. Nagendrababu V, Ahmed HMA. Shaping properties and outcomes of nickel-titanium rotary and reciprocation systems using micro-computed tomography: A systematic review. Quintessence Int. 2019; 50(3):186-95.

5. Micro-Mega. The One Cur ve Brochure. Available at: https://micro-mega.com/wp-content/ uploads/2018/03/60301824-D_Brochure-OneCurve-EN_WEB.pdf

6. Staffoli S, Grande NM, Plotino G, Özyürek T, Gündoğar M, Fortunato L, Polimeni A. Influence of environmental temperature, heat-treatment and design on the cyclic fatigue resistance of three generations of a single-file nickel-titanium rotary instrument. Odontology. 2019; 107(3):301-7.

7. Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent. 2009; 2009:634567.

8. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J. 2006; 39(3):196-202.

9. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2):271-5.

10. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997; 23(2):77-85.

11. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996; 22(7):369-75.

12. Elsherief SM, Zayet MK, Hamouda, IM. Conebeam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res. 2013; 27(4):326-35.

13. Javaheri HH, Javaheri GH. A comparison of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation. J Endod. 2007; 33(3):284-6.

14. Karabucak B, Gatan AJ, Hsiao C, Iqbal MK. A comparison of apical transportation and length control between EndoSequence and Guidance rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010; 36(1):123-5.

15. Shen Y, Cheung G. Methods and models to study nickel–titanium instruments. Endod Topics. 2013; 29(1):18-41.

16. Peralta-Mamani M, Rios D, Duarte M, Santiago Junior JF, Honório HM. Manual vs. rotary instrumentation in endodontic treatment of permanent teeth: A systematic review and metaanalysis. Am J Dent. 2019; 32(6):311-24.

17. Daou C, El Hachem R, Naaman A, Zogheib C, El Osta N, Khalil I. Effect of 2 heat-treated nickeltitanium files on enlargement and deformation of the apical foramen in curved canals: A scanning electronic microscopic study. J Endod. 2020; 46(10):1478-84.

18. Razcha C, Zacharopoulos A, Anestis D, Mikrogeorgis G, Zacharakis G, Lyroudia K. Micro-computed tomographic evaluation of canal transportation and centering ability of 4 heattreated nickel-titanium systems. J Endod. 2020; 46(5):675-81.

19. Arıcan Öztürk B, Atav Ateş A, Fişekçioğlu E. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of shaping ability of XP-endo Shaper and ProTaper Next in large root canals. J Endod. 2020; 46(3):437- 43.

20. Hage W, Zogheib C, Bukiet F, Sfeir G, Khalil I, Gergi R, Naaman A. Canal transportation and centring ability of Reciproc and Reciproc Blue with or without use of glide path instruments: A CBCT study. Eur Endod J. 2020; 5(5):118-22.

21. Hasheminia SM, Farhad A, Sheikhi M, Soltani P, Hendi SS, Ahmadi M. Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of canal transportation an centering ability of single-file systems. J Endod. 2018; 44(12):1788-91.

22. Yılmaz F, Eren İ, Eren H, Badi MA, Ocak M, Çelik HH. Evaluation of the amount of root canal dentin removed and apical transportation occurrence after instrumentation with ProTaper Next, OneShape, and EdgeFile rotary systems. J Endod. 2020; 46(5):662-7.

23. Htun PH, Ebihara A, Maki K, Kimura S, Nishijo M, Okiji T. Cleaning and shaping ability of Gentlefile, HyFlex EDM, and ProTaper Next instruments: A combined micro-computed tomographic and scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2020; 46(7):973-9.

24. de Albuquerque MS, Nascimento AS, Gialain IO, de Lima EA, Nery JA, de Souza Araujo PR, de Menezes RF, Kato AS, Braz R. Canal transportation, centering ability, and dentin removal after instrumentation: A micro-CT evaluation. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2019; 20(7):806- 11.

25. Kabil E, Katić M, Anić I, Bago I. 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. J Endod. 2021; 47(3):477-84.

26. Pérez Morales MLN, González Sánchez JA, Olivieri JG, Elmsmari F, Salmon P, Jaramillo DE, Terol FD. Micro-computed tomographic assessment and comparative study of the shaping ability of 6 nickel-titanium files: An in vitro study. J Endod. 2021; 47(5):812-9.

27. Tufenkci P, Orhan K, Celikten B, Bilecenoglu B, Gur G, Sevimay S. Micro-computed tomographic assessment of the shaping ability of the One Curve, One Shape, and ProTaper Next nickeltitanium rotary systems. Restor Dent Endod. 2020; 45(3):e30.

28. Gomaa MA, Osama M, Badr AE. Shaping ability of three thermally treated nickel-titanium systems in S-shaped canals. Aust Endod J. 2021; 47(3):435- 41.

29. Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: Effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod. 2000; 26(4):210-6.

Recommended Citation

Hazar, E., Geduk, G., Coşkun, E., Koçak, S., Sağlam, B. C., & Koçak, M. M. Comparison of Centering Ability and Canal Transportation of TruNatomy Files with Different File Systems. J Dent Indones. 2023;30(2): 81-86