• Users Online: 294
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Year : 2020  |  Volume : 32  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 67-71

Centering ability of three different mechanized files while instrumenting oval canals

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Ajinkya Mansing Pawar
301, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Nair Hospital Dental College, Mumbai - 400 008, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_77_19

Rights and Permissions

Purpose: The present study evaluated the centering ability of rotary ProTaper NEXT (PTN; Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK), reciprocating WaveOne (WO; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and vibratory Self-Adjusting File (SAF; ReDent Nova, Ràanana, Israel) when used for instrumenting mandibular premolars with oval canals. Materials and Methods: Ninety oval canals (confirmed using radiovisography, buccolingual dimensions were × 2.5 the mesiodistal canal dimensions) were acquired, preinstrumentation cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) was taken, and divided into three groups (n = 30) for root canal instrumentation: group 1 – PTN; Group 2 – WO; and Group 3 – SAF. The samples were then subjected to postinstrumentation CBCT. The pre- and postinstrumentation scans were compared at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the apex to obtain the centering ability ratio of the three files. The data collected were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance test and Duncan's multiple comparison tests. Results: The ratio obtained at 6 mm and 9 mm from the apex did not differ for the mesiodistal dimensions (P > 0.05), but a significant difference was observed when the buccolingual dimensions were considered (P < 0.001). The PTN and WO instrumentation were associated with a very high ratio for buccolingual dimensions. However, SAF instrumentation resulted in well-centered preparation for both the dimensions at 6 mm and 9 mm (P < 0.001). At 3 mm from the apex, the files did not differ in canal preparation (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The SAF instrumentation results in centered preparation when used for instrumenting nonround root canals.

Print this article     Email this article
 Next article
 Previous article
 Table of Contents

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
 Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
 Reader Comments
 Email Alert *
 Add to My List *
 * Requires registration (Free)

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded315    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal