Negotiation, Centering Ability and Transportation of Three Glide Path Files in Second Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars: A CBCT Assessment.

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to compare negotiation, centering ability and transportation of three path finder rotary instruments (ProGlider, ScoutRace and M3 Pro-Gold Path File) to create glide path in second mesiobuccal (MB2) canals of maxillary molars with cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In this study, 66 maxillary molars with separate second MB2 canals were selected with the following criteria: having 18-21 mm root length, without any resorption or calcification in radiography, without previous treatment and 20-40 curve according to Schneider's method. Then MB2 canals were randomly divided into three groups (=22). CBCT scan before and after root canal negotiation was taken. A #10 K-file for determination of working length was inserted into all canals. In group1; ProGlider file, group2; ScoutRace file and in group 3; M3 Pro-Gold Path file was implemented. The calculated data from CBCT based on reaching full working length (RFWL) or not (NRFWL) were analyzed using the Pearson -square test. Centering ability was calculated by Fisher's exact test and amount of transportation was determined with the Pearson -square test in SPSS software.

RESULTS

ProGlider file had the least RFWL and ScoutRace was the best, but the results were not statistically significant (>0.05). Regarding the centering ability and transportation, all 3 groups showed no significant differences (>0.05), except at level of 2 mm from the apex in buccopalatal direction for ProGlider and ScoutRace files (<0.05).

CONCLUSION

In spite of insignificantly different results, ScoutRace file was better than other groups in negotiating and centering ability in mesiodistal direction of the MB2 canal in maxillary molars. Also, ProGlider file was significantly better than ScoutRace regarding transportation at level of 2 mm from apex in buccopalatal direction.