Comparative Evaluation of Canal Transport and Centralization Between ProTaper Next and XP-endo Shaper Systems Using CBCT Analysis: An In Vitro Study

Overview

Journal Int J Dent

Publisher Wiley

Date 2025 Jan 13

PMID 39801839

Authors

Hamed Karkehabadi

Abbas Shokri

Negar Banitalebi

Roshanak Abbasi

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This study compared the apical transportation and centering ratio of ProTaper Next (PTN) and XP-endo Shaper (XPS) nickel titanium (NiTi) rotary files in curved root canals using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT). The current in vitro study involved the mesiobuccal canals of mesial roots in 44 extracted mandibular first molars that exhibited apical curvature ranging from 10° to 30°. Two experimental groups were randomly formed from the teeth ( = 22) and subjected to instrumentation with PTN and XPS. CBCT scans were performed before and after instrumentation on the teeth, and the apical transport and centering ratio were calculated at 3, 4, and 5 mm from the apex. Group comparisons were conducted using an independent -test with a significance level set at alpha = 0.05. Comparisons within groups did not reveal any statistically significant differences in the magnitude of canal transportation in the buccolingual (BL) and mesiodistal (MD) directions at any level from the apex, neither in the XPS group nor in the PTN group ( > 0.05). Canal transportation in both BL and MD directions was significantly greater in PTN than in XPS ( < 0.05). The centering ratio in the MD and BL directions was the same at 3, 4, and 5 mm from the apex in the PTN ( > 0.05) and also in the XPS ( > 0.05) groups. The centering ratio was significantly higher in XPS than in PTN ( < 0.05) except at 5 mm from the apex in the MD direction and 4 and 5 mm from the apex in the BL direction ( > 0.05). Both buccolingually and mesiodistally, PTN led to greater apical transport than XPS and also showed a lower centering ratio.

References

Bechara B, McMahan C, Moore W, Noujeim M, Geha H, Teixeira F . Contrast-to-noise ratio difference in small field of view cone beam computed tomography machines. J Oral Sci. 2012; 54(3):227-32. DOI: 10.2334/josnusd.54.227. View

Mesgarani A, Hamidi M, Haghanifar S, Naiemi S, Bijani A . Comparison of apical transportation and centering ability of Mtwo and Reciproc R25 in severely curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2018; 15(1):57-62. PMC: 5806431. DOI: 10.4103/1735-3327.223620. View

Karkehabadi H, Siahvashi Z, Shokri A, Hasani N . Cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of apical transportation and centering ratio of ProTaper and XP-endo Shaper NiTi rotary systems in curved canals: an in vitro study. BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21(1):277. PMC: 8147396. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-021-01617-w. View

Versiani M, Carvalho K, Mazzi-Chaves J, Sousa-Neto M . Micro-computed Tomographic Evaluation of the Shaping Ability of XP-endo Shaper, iRaCe, and EdgeFile Systems in Long Oval-shaped Canals. J Endod. 2017; 44(3):489-495. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2017.09.008. View

Kabil E, Katic M, Anic I, Bago I . Micro-computed Evaluation of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of 5 Rotary and Reciprocating Systems with Different Metallurgical Properties and Surface Treatments in Curved Root Canals. J Endod. 2020; 47(3):477-484. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.11.003. View

Thompson S . An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endod J. 2001; 33(4):297-310. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00339.x. View

Moazzami F, Khojastepour L, Nabavizadeh M, Habashi M . Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Assessment of Root Canal Transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File Systems. Iran Endod J. 2016; 11(2):96-100. PMC: 4841342. DOI: 10.7508/iej.2016.02.004. View

Duran-Sindreu F, Garcia M, Olivieri J, Mercade M, Morello S, Roig M . A comparison of apical transportation between FlexMaster and Twisted Files rotary instruments. J Endod. 2012; 38(7):993-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.03.019. View

Arican Ozturk B, Atav Ates A, Fisekcioglu E . Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Shaping Ability of XP-endo Shaper and ProTaper Next in Large Root Canals. J Endod. 2020; 46(3):437-443. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.11.014. View

10.

Jain A, Asrani H, Singhal A, Bhatia T, Sharma V, Jaiswal P . Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between WaveOne and ProTaper rotary by using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016; 19(5):440-4. PMC: 5026104. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.190024. View

11.

Fernandes P, Freire L, Iglecias E, Rodrigues Vieira B, Zuolo M, Gavini G . Assessment of Mechanical Root Canal Preparation with Centric Reciprocating or Eccentric Rotary Kinematics: A Micro-computed Tomographic Study. J Endod. 2020; 46(9):1309-1316. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2020.06.005. View

12.

Hage W, Zogheib C, Bukiet F, Sfeir G, Khalil I, Gergi R . Canal Transportation and Centring Ability of Reciproc and Reciproc Blue With or Without Use of Glide Path Instruments: A CBCT Study. Eur Endod J. 2020; 5(2):118-122. PMC: 7398994. DOI: 10.14744/eej.2019.86570. View

13.

Nathani T, Nathani A, Pawar A, Khakiani M, Ruiz X, Olivieri J . Canal Transportation and Centering Ability in Long Oval Canals: A Multidimentional Analysis. J Endod. 2019; 45(10):1242-1247. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2019.07.007. View

14.

Saberi N, Patel S, Mannocci F . Comparison of centring ability and transportation between four nickel titanium instrumentation techniques by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J. 2016; 50(6):595-603. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12658. View

15.

Schneider S . A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971; 32(2):271-5. DOI: 10.1016/0030-4220(71)90230-1. View

16.

Madani Z, Soleymani A, Bagheri T, Moudi E, Bijani A, Rakhshan V . Transportation and Centering Ability of Neoniti and ProTaper Instruments; A CBCT Assessment. Iran Endod J. 2017; 12(1):43-49. PMC: 5282378. DOI: 10.22037/iej.2017.09. View

17.

Elnaghy A, Elsaka S . Cyclic fatigue resistance of XP-endo Shaper compared with different nickel-titanium alloy instruments. Clin Oral Investig. 2017; 22(3):1433-1437. DOI: 10.1007/s00784-017-2245-5. View

18.

Pansheriya E, Goel M, Gupta K, Ahuja R, Kaur R, Garg V . Comparative Evaluation of Apical Transportation and Canal Centric Ability in Apical Region of Newer nickel-titanium File Systems Using cone-beam computed tomography on Extracted Molars: An Study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018; 9(Suppl 2):S215-S220. PMC: 6169273. DOI: 10.4103/ccd.ccd_17_18. View

19.

Mohammed Saleh A, Gilani P, Tavanafar S, Schafer E . Shaping ability of 4 different single-file systems in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod. 2015; 41(4):548-52. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.11.019. View

20.

Shokri A, Eskandarloo A, Zahedi F, Karkehabadi H, Foroozandeh M, Farhadian M . Effect of different intracanal posts and exposure parameters on detection of vertical root fractures by cone-beam computed tomography. Aust Endod J. 2022; 49 Suppl 1:132-145. DOI: 10.1111/aej.12700. View