Abstract
Apically extruded debris, canal transportation and shaping ability were compared between contracted endodontic cavities (CECs) and traditional endodontic cavities (TECs) after instrumentation with XP-endo Shaper (XPS), ProTaper Gold (PTG), ProTaper for hand-use (HPT) and Hero Shaper. The CECs or TECs groups were sub-divided into 24 groups according to root canal morphology and nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments. The weight of apically extruded debris was calculated using the Myers and Montgomery model. Pre- and postoperative images of teeth were scanned using micro-CT and the three-dimensional models were constructed and compared. Under CECs or TECs, XPS and PTG produced less apical debris and formed less canal transportation than HPT and Hero Shaper (P < 0.05). XPS group under CECs extruded less apical debris than that under TCEs for round canals with curvature of 20°-35° (P < 0.05). The centering ratios of four tested instruments were higher under TECs than those under CECs (P < 0.05). The HPT and Hero Shaper had more transportation under CECs than that under TCEs (P < 0.05). No statistical difference was found regarding shaping ability among all the groups. Under CECs, XPS preserves the original root canal anatomy, meanwhile it produces less apical debris than the other instruments.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
