Canal Transportation and Centering Ability in Long Oval Canals: A Multidimentional Analysis.

INTRODUCTION

The purpose of this study was to evaluate and compare the centering ability and canal transportation of the ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Self-adjusting File (SAF; ReDent-Nova, Ra'anana, Israel) systems in long oval root canals using cone-beam computed tomography imaging.

METHODS

Fifty-six fully formed single-rooted mandibular premolars were selected with a buccolingual canal size 2 to 2.5 times the mesiodistal size at 5 mm from the apex, ranging from a 0°-10° canal curvature with a 5- to 6-mm radius. The teeth were divided into 2 groups (n = 28) and prepared with PTN or SAF according to the manufacturers' instructions. Cone-beam computed tomographic images were taken in the same position before and after instrumentation using modeling wax. The centering ability and canal transportation were calculated at 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex in both mesiodistal and buccolingual directions. The mean and standard deviation were calculated, and the Student t test was used for comparative analysis.

RESULTS

significant difference for canal transportation was observed mesiodistally at 9 mm from the apex (P < .05) where the PTN shaved more dentin in 1 direction. A significant difference for the centering ability was observed at 6 mm buccolingually from the apex (P < .05) where the PTN was less centered in the canal compared with the SAF.

CONCLUSIONS

Both SAF and PTN were shown to be safe for being used in long oval canals. SAF resulted in less transportation at the coronal third in the mesiodistal direction and more centered at the middle third in the buccolingual direction compared with PTN.