Exploring the Efficacy of 6 Preparation Systems for Achieving Minimal Root Canal Transportation: A Micro-CT Investigation

Abstract

IntroductionThis study aimed to assess the canal transportation with 6 preparation systems. MethodsSixty curved mesial roots of mandibular molars were scanned, and their root canals (n = 20 per group) were prepared with XP-endo Shaper, BioRace, ProTaper Next, Twisted File Adaptive, Reciproc, or Reciproc Blue systems. After preparation, a new scan was conducted, and transportation was determined by comparing the geometric center of the canal in 13,542 cross-sectional slices. The transport direction frequencies were recorded, and linear transport were compared using a Univariate GLM model and Tukey honestly significant difference tests (α = 5 %). ResultsTransportation was affected by the preparation system and root third (P < .05), with no significant effect observed for the root canal (P > .05). The Twisted File Adaptive had the highest transport (P < .05), and the lowest transports were observed with XP-endo Shaper, ProTaper Next, and BioRace (P < .05). Reciproc Blue and Reciproc showed intermediate results (P < .05). The apical and coronal third exhibited the lowest and highest transportation, respectively (P < .05). A significant interaction was observed between the preparation system and root third (P < .05). In the coronal third, transportation was mostly toward the disto-inside direction, whereas in the middle and apical thirds, transportation was predominantly toward the mesio-outside direction. ConclusionsXP-endo Shaper had the lowest mean linear transportation followed by the ProTaper Next, BioRace, Reciproc Blue, and Reciproc systems. The Twisted File Adaptive system had the worst performance. The direction of transportation was generally toward the inner aspect of the canal at the coronal third and toward the outer aspect of the curve at the middle and apical thirds.