https://orcid.org/0009-0004-5685-3720
Abstract
Background
This simulated study of 30 severely curved L-shaped root canals aimed to compare preparation time, aberrations, width measurements, and fractured files of three nickel–titanium (Ni–Ti) files, namely, ProTaper, ProTaper Next (PTN), and WaveOne (WO).
Methods
Thirty simulated L-curved root canals of resin blocks were randomly divided into three groups. The canals were prepared to a tip size of 25 using ProTaper, PTN, and WO rotary file systems. Pre- and post-operative views for each sample were captured by a professional camera at a standardized distance and position. Blue India ink was injected into the pre-operative canals, and red India ink was injected into the post-operative canals to give a clear superimposition image. Five points were assessed through the halfway of the canal to the orifice (area between the beginning of curvature and apical end point). Preparation time, aberrations, width measurements, and fractured files were recorded and analyzed.
Results
Mean preparation time was longest in ProTaper (4.89±0.68 minutes). PTN and WO were the fastest in preparing the canals (about 3 minutes). A statistically significant difference was found between WO and ProTaper & PTN and ProTaper (p=0.000), while the difference was non-significant (p > 0.05) between WO and PTN. Nine aberrations consisting of three zips, one ledge and one outer widening were related to ProTaper, while WO recorded a ledge and fractured file, but for PTN system, it verified an outer widening and ledge. Only one WO file fractured, with no deformation observed in the other instruments. No significance was recorded among the width measurements in the different levels.
Conclusion
ProTaper next achieved faster cutting than the ProTaper and WO file systems. PTN maintained the best apical termination position and produced the least canal aberration, followed by WO and ProTaper.
Disclosure
The authors report no conflicts of interest in this work.