Volume 10, Issue 3 (9-2025)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025, 10(3): 168-175 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Guha P, Priscilla Antony D, Solete P, Arun N. Comparison of Remaining Dentin Thickness, Canal Transportation, and Canal Centering Ratio Using Three Different Rotary File Systems: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Analysis. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2025; 10 (3) :168-175
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-821-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-821-en.html
1- Postgraduate Resident, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
2- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India. ,delphy.priscilla@gmail.com
3- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
2- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India. ,
3- Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India.
Abstract: (16 Views)
Background and Aim: This study evaluated the remaining dentin thickness (RDT), canal transportation (CT), and canal centering ratio (CCR) of three different rotary file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 153 extracted mandibular molars were evaluated. The working length was determined using CBCT before starting the experiment. A skilled dentist then prepared the root canals using three types of rotary files: ProFit S3, HyFLEX CM, and NeoEndo S. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans were analyzed to compare the results. One-way ANOVA and Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.
Results: ProFit S3 demonstrated a superior performance in preserving dentin thickness and maintaining canal geometry compared to HyFlex CM and NeoEndo S. In both MB and ML canals, at 6 mm and 9 mm, ProFit S3 exhibited significantly higher RDT (P≤0.007), less CT (P≤0.006), and better CCR (P≤0.01) than other systems. Among the remaining systems, HyFlex CM performed better than NeoEndo S for RDT and CT at these levels. At 3 mm, no significant differences were found for RDT or CT; however, ProFit S3 showed significantly better CCR than NeoEndo S (P<0.01) and HyFlex CM (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Among the tested systems, ProFit S3 resulted in the least change in canal volume, suggesting that it may be better at preserving the original shape of the root canal, as well as the surrounding dentin, compared to Hyflex CM and NeoEndo S.
Materials and Methods: In this in vitro study, 153 extracted mandibular molars were evaluated. The working length was determined using CBCT before starting the experiment. A skilled dentist then prepared the root canals using three types of rotary files: ProFit S3, HyFLEX CM, and NeoEndo S. Pre- and post-treatment CBCT scans were analyzed to compare the results. One-way ANOVA and Tukey test were used for statistical analysis.
Results: ProFit S3 demonstrated a superior performance in preserving dentin thickness and maintaining canal geometry compared to HyFlex CM and NeoEndo S. In both MB and ML canals, at 6 mm and 9 mm, ProFit S3 exhibited significantly higher RDT (P≤0.007), less CT (P≤0.006), and better CCR (P≤0.01) than other systems. Among the remaining systems, HyFlex CM performed better than NeoEndo S for RDT and CT at these levels. At 3 mm, no significant differences were found for RDT or CT; however, ProFit S3 showed significantly better CCR than NeoEndo S (P<0.01) and HyFlex CM (P<0.05).
Conclusion: Among the tested systems, ProFit S3 resulted in the least change in canal volume, suggesting that it may be better at preserving the original shape of the root canal, as well as the surrounding dentin, compared to Hyflex CM and NeoEndo S.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Endodontics
References
1. Gomes BPFA, Aveiro E, Kishen A. Irrigants and irrigation activation systems in Endodontics. Braz Dent J. 2023 Jul-Aug;34(4):1-33. [DOI:10.1590/0103-6440202305577]
2. Abdelkafy H, Eldehna AM, Salem NA. Canal Transportation and Centring Ratio of Paediatric vs Regular Files in Primary Teeth. Int Dent J. 2023 Jun;73(3):423-9. [DOI:10.1016/j.identj.2022.09.003] [PMID] []
3. Chourasia HR, Meshram GK, Warhadpande M, Dakshindas D. Root canal morphology of mandibular first permanent molars in an Indian population. Int J Dent. 2012;2012:745152. [DOI:10.1155/2012/745152] [PMID] []
4. Antony SDP, Subramanian AK, Nivedhitha MS, Solete P. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and dentin removal between ProTaper Gold, One Curve, and Profit S3: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2020 Nov-Dec;23(6):632-6. [DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_619_20] [PMID] []
5. Tabassum S, Khan FR. Failure of endodontic treatment: The usual suspects. Eur J Dent. 2016 Jan-Mar;10(1):144-7. [DOI:10.4103/1305-7456.175682] [PMID] []
6. Ali A, Saraf P, Kamatagi L, Khasnis S. Comparative Assessment of Canal Transportation, Dentin Loss, and Remaining Root Filling Material by Different Retreatment Files An In vitro Cross-Sectional Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2021 Jan-Mar;12(1):14-20. [DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_31_20] [PMID] []
7. Chaudhary NR, Singh DJ, Somani R, Jaidka S. Comparative Evaluation of Efficiency of Different File Systems in Terms of Remaining Dentin Thickness Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: An In vitro Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018 Jul-Sep;9(3):367-71. [DOI:10.4103/ccd.ccd_72_18] [PMID] []
8. Kwak SW, Shen Y, Liu H, Kim HC, Haapasalo M. Torque Generation of the Endodontic Instruments: A Narrative Review. Materials (Basel). 2022 Jan 17;15(2):664. [DOI:10.3390/ma15020664] [PMID] []
9. Asha K, Ghivari S, Pujar M, Sait S. NiTi rotary system in endodontics-An overview. IP Indian J Conserv Endod. 2023;8:128-33. [DOI:10.18231/j.ijce.2023.025]
10. Al-Sudani D. Topographic Analysis of HyFlex(®) Controlled Memory Nickel-Titanium Files. J Int Oral Health. 2014 Nov-Dec;6(6):1-4.
11. Chhabra A, Ramya KP, Prathap BS, Yadav P. Life span of Neoendo Flex and ProTaper Next rotary files with reciprocating motion in single-rooted teeth. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2023 Jul-Aug;26(4):420-3.
12. Swathi S, Antony DP, Solete P, Jeevanandan G, Vishwanathaiah S, Maganur PC. Comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness, canal centering ability and apical deformity between ProFit S3 and Protaper gold - A nano CT study. Saudi Dent J. 2024 Apr;36(4):650-5. [DOI:10.1016/j.sdentj.2024.01.002] [PMID] []
13. Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent. 2009;2009:634567. [DOI:10.1155/2009/634567] [PMID] []
14. Makati D, Shah NC, Brave D, Singh Rathore VP, Bhadra D, Dedania MS. Evaluation of remaining dentin thickness and fracture resistance of conventional and conservative access and biomechanical preparation in molars using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2018 May-Jun;21(3):324-7. [DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_311_17] [PMID] []
15. Jain A, Gupta AS, Agrawal R. Comparative analysis of canal-centering ratio, apical transportation, and remaining dentin thickness between single-file systems, i.e., OneShape and WaveOne reciprocation: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Nov-Dec;21(6):637-641. [DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_101_18] [PMID] []
16. Puleio F, Bellezza U, Torre A, Giordano F, Lo Giudice G. Apical transportation of apical foramen by different NiTi alloy systems: a systematic review. Appl. Sci. 2023 Sep 22;13(19):10555. [DOI:10.3390/app131910555]
17. Karamifar K, Tondari A, Saghiri MA. Endodontic Periapical Lesion: An Overview on the Etiology, Diagnosis and Current Treatment Modalities. Eur Endod J. 2020 Jul 14;5(2):54-67. [DOI:10.14744/eej.2020.42714] [PMID] []
18. Kishore A, Gurtu A, Bansal R, Singhal A, Mohan S, Mehrotra A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of Twisted Files, HyFlex controlled memory, and Wave One using computed tomography scan: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2017 May-Jun;20(3):161-5. [DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_110_16] [PMID] []
19. S DPA, Solete P, Jeevanandan G, Syed AA, Almahdi S, Alzhrani M, Maganur PC, Vishwanathaiah S. Effect of Various Irrigant Activation Methods and Its Penetration in the Apical Third of Root Canal-In Vitro Study. Eur J Dent. 2023 Feb;17(1):57-61. [DOI:10.1055/s-0041-1742122] [PMID] []
20. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996 Jul;22(7):369-75. [DOI:10.1016/S0099-2399(96)80221-4] [PMID]
21. Jain A, Gupta AS, Agrawal R. Comparative analysis of canal-centering ratio, apical transportation, and remaining dentin thickness between single-file systems, i.e., OneShape and WaveOne reciprocation: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2018 Nov-Dec;21(6):637-41. [DOI:10.4103/JCD.JCD_101_18] [PMID] []
22. Nagendrababu V, Murray PE, Ordinola-Zapata R, Peters OA, Rôças IN, Siqueira JF Jr, Priya E, Jayaraman J, J Pulikkotil S, Camilleri J, Boutsioukis C, Rossi-Fedele G, Dummer PMH. PRILE 2021 guidelines for reporting laboratory studies in Endodontology: A consensus-based development. Int Endod J. 2021 Sep;54(9):1482-90. [DOI:10.1111/iej.13542] [PMID]
23. Marvaniya J, Agarwal K, Mehta DN, Parmar N, Shyamal R, Patel J. Minimal Invasive Endodontics: A Comprehensive Narrative Review. Cureus. 2022 Jun 16;14(6):e25984. [DOI:10.7759/cureus.25984] [PMID] []
24. Silva RV, Alcalde MP, Horta MC, Rodrigues CT, Silveira FF, Duarte MA, Nunes E. Root canal shaping of curved canals by Reciproc Blue system and Pro Taper Gold: A micro-computed tomographic study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2021 Feb 1;13(2):e112-8. [DOI:10.4317/jced.57180] [PMID] []
25. Hemalatha P, Sanjana V, Padmanabhan P, Muthalagu M, Shahul Hameed M. A comparative evaluation of the efficacy of intraoral periapical radiography, panoramic radiography and CBCT in the assessment of impacted mandibular third molars and their relation to the inferior alveolar nerve canal. IP Int J Maxillofac Imaging. 2021;7(4):156-62. [DOI:10.18231/j.ijmi.2021.028]
26. Pinheiro SR, Alcalde MP, Vivacqua-Gomes N, Bramante CM, Vivan RR, Duarte MAH, Vasconcelos BC. Evaluation of apical transportation and centring ability of five thermally treated NiTi rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2018 Jun;51(6):705-13. [DOI:10.1111/iej.12881] [PMID]
27. Mehta SD, Malhan S, Bansal C. Iatrogenic Complications Arising From Cleaning and Shaping: A Review. Int. J. of Health Sci. 2021:56-62. [DOI:10.53730/ijhs.v5nS1.5342]
28. Hasheminia SM, Soltani S, Mohamadian F, Saatchi M, Sadeghi SM. Evaluation of apical transportation and centering ability of three single-file systems in severely curved canals using micro-computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2024 Feb 22;21:12. [DOI:10.4103/drj.drj_270_23]
29. Haralur SB, Al-Qahtani AS, Al-Qarni MM, Al-Homrany RM, Aboalkhair AE. Influence of remaining dentin wall thickness on the fracture strength of endodontically treated tooth. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Jan-Feb;19(1):63-7. [DOI:10.4103/0972-0707.173201] [PMID] []
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
