Comparison of shaping ability of ProTaper Next and 2Shape nickel–titanium files in simulated severe curved canals

Abstract

Aim: To evaluate the centering ability of ProTaper Next (PTN) and 2Shape (TS) nickel–titanium (NiTi) instruments in terms of maintaining the original root canal configuration in a simulated tooth with severe curvature. Methodology: Twenty standardized simulated curved root canals were prepared to an apical size of 0.25 mm using PTN and TS (n = 10 canal/group) nickel-titanium files. A gig was constructed to enable reproducible image acquisition using a photographic camera. Pre- and post-instrumented images were recorded and superimposed using a computer software. The ability of the instruments to remain centered in the canal was determined by calculating a centering ratio at three independent points of the simulated canal: coronal, middle and apical third of the curvature, using a computer software. Statistical analysis was performed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by independent sample t-test at 5% significance level. Results: No significant difference was found between the two systems (p > 0.05). At the apical third, the mean centering ratio was significantly higher than the centering ratio of the coronal and the middle thirds in both TS and PTN (p < 0.05). Conclusions: There were no significant differences in the centering ability of the ProTaper Next and 2Shape systems in simulated severe curved canals. Both systems exhibited some degree of transportation, especially in the apical third. Riassunto: OBIETTIVI: L’obiettivo è confrontare la centratura di preparazione tra Protaper Next e 2Shape in canali artificiali con curvature complesse. MATERIALI E METODI: 20 molari inferiori artificiali con canali colorati sono stati divisi random per I due tipi di strumenti testate.Le immagini prima e dopo la strumentazione sono state rilevate mediante un software (Adobe Photoshop 7.0.1; Adobe Systems, Inc., Mountain View, California, USA). La capacita di centratura degli strumenti è stata calcolata misurando i canali in three differenti porzioni: Coronale, Media ed Apicale.ANOVA test è stato successivamente eseguito per determinare I valori ottenuti. RISULTATI: Non sono risultate differenze significativamente tra la capacità di centratura di preparazione tra I due strumenti testati. CONCLUSIONI: No differenze significative tra I due strumenti testati, entrambi hanno evidenziato un certo trasporto della centratura della pereparazione sopratutto nel terzo apicale. Keywords: Centering ability, Centering ratio, Heat treatment, 2Shape, ProTaper Next, Parole chiave: NichelTitanio, Capacità di centratura, Trattamento termico, 2Shape, Protaper Next