<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<journal>
<title>Journal of Research in Dental and Maxillofacial Sciences</title>
<title_fa></title_fa>
<short_title>J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci</short_title>
<subject>Medical Sciences</subject>
<web_url>http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir</web_url>
<journal_hbi_system_id>1</journal_hbi_system_id>
<journal_hbi_system_user>admin</journal_hbi_system_user>
<journal_id_issn>2588-4166</journal_id_issn>
<journal_id_issn_online>2383-2754</journal_id_issn_online>
<journal_id_pii></journal_id_pii>
<journal_id_doi>10.61882/jrdms</journal_id_doi>
<journal_id_iranmedex></journal_id_iranmedex>
<journal_id_magiran></journal_id_magiran>
<journal_id_sid></journal_id_sid>
<journal_id_nlai></journal_id_nlai>
<journal_id_science></journal_id_science>
<language>en</language>
<pubdate>
	<type>jalali</type>
	<year>1404</year>
	<month>6</month>
	<day>1</day>
</pubdate>
<pubdate>
	<type>gregorian</type>
	<year>2025</year>
	<month>9</month>
	<day>1</day>
</pubdate>
<volume>10</volume>
<number>3</number>
<publish_type>online</publish_type>
<publish_edition>1</publish_edition>
<article_type>fulltext</article_type>
<articleset>
	<article>


	<language>en</language>
	<article_id_doi></article_id_doi>
	<title_fa></title_fa>
	<title>Comparison of Remaining Dentin Thickness, Canal Transportation, and Canal Centering Ratio Using Three Different Rotary File Systems: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Analysis</title>
	<subject_fa>Endodontics</subject_fa>
	<subject>Endodontics</subject>
	<content_type_fa>Original article</content_type_fa>
	<content_type>Original article</content_type>
	<abstract_fa></abstract_fa>
	<abstract>&lt;div style=&quot;text-align: justify;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:13pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span new=&quot;&quot; roman=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#2e74b5&quot;&gt;Background and Aim&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#2e74b5&quot;&gt;:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;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). &amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:13pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span new=&quot;&quot; roman=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#2e74b5&quot;&gt;Materials and Methods: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;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. &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:13pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span new=&quot;&quot; roman=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#2e74b5&quot;&gt;Results: &lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0e101a&quot;&gt;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&amp;le;0.007), less CT (P&amp;le;0.006), and better CCR (P&amp;le;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&lt;0.01) and HyFlex CM (P&lt;0.05).&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot;Verdana&quot;,sans-serif&quot;&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:13pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span new=&quot;&quot; roman=&quot;&quot; style=&quot;font-family:&quot; times=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#2e74b5&quot;&gt;Conclusion:&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/b&gt; &lt;span style=&quot;font-size:9.0pt&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;line-height:105%&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-family:&quot; verdana=&quot;&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;color:#0e101a&quot;&gt;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.&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/span&gt;&lt;br&gt;
&amp;nbsp;&lt;/div&gt;</abstract>
	<keyword_fa></keyword_fa>
	<keyword>Cone-Beam Computed Tomography, Endodontics, In Vitro Techniques, Root Canal Preparation</keyword>
	<start_page>168</start_page>
	<end_page>175</end_page>
	<web_url>http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-1761-2&amp;slc_lang=en&amp;sid=1</web_url>


<author_list>
	<author>
	<first_name>Poulomi</first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name>Guha</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email>poulomiguha1998@gmail.com</email>
	<code>100319475328460015466</code>
	<orcid>100319475328460015466</orcid>
	<coreauthor>No</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>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.</affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


	<author>
	<first_name>Delphine</first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name>Priscilla Antony</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email>delphy.priscilla@gmail.com</email>
	<code>100319475328460015467</code>
	<orcid>100319475328460015467</orcid>
	<coreauthor>Yes
</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India. </affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


	<author>
	<first_name>Pradeep</first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name>Solete</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email>pandu.pradeep@gmail.com</email>
	<code>100319475328460015468</code>
	<orcid>100319475328460015468</orcid>
	<coreauthor>No</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India. </affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


	<author>
	<first_name>Nishitha</first_name>
	<middle_name></middle_name>
	<last_name>Arun</last_name>
	<suffix></suffix>
	<first_name_fa></first_name_fa>
	<middle_name_fa></middle_name_fa>
	<last_name_fa></last_name_fa>
	<suffix_fa></suffix_fa>
	<email>nishithaarub.sdc@saveetha.com</email>
	<code>100319475328460015469</code>
	<orcid>100319475328460015469</orcid>
	<coreauthor>No</coreauthor>
	<affiliation>Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Science (SIMATS) Saveetha University, Chennai, India. </affiliation>
	<affiliation_fa></affiliation_fa>
	 </author>


</author_list>


	</article>
</articleset>
</journal>
