The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 16 , ISSUE 5 ( May, 2015 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio by Cone-beam Computed Tomography after Preparation with Different File Systems

Sevinç Aktemur Türker, Emel Uzunoglu

Citation Information : Türker SA, Uzunoglu E. Comparison of Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio by Cone-beam Computed Tomography after Preparation with Different File Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015; 16 (5):360-365.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1690

Published Online: 01-10-2015

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2015; The Author(s).



One Shape Apical 1 (OSA 1) is a new file for preparing the apical aspect of the root canal after One Shape (OS, Micro Mega, Besançon, France). This study compared apical transportation and centering ratios in curved root canals, which were instrumented with ProTaper Next (PTN, Dentsply Tulsa Dental Specialties, Tulsa, OK) up to size X3 and with OS up to OSA 1.

Materials and methods

Forty-eight mesial canals of mandibular molars were assigned into two groups (n = 24) with respect to canal length and curvature. Root canals were accessed conventionally and preperation was completed with PTN files up to X3 or with OS up to OSA 1 according to the manufacturer's protocols. Apical transportation was assessed pre- and postinstrumentation using cone-beam computed tomographic (CBCT) scans of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 mm sections. A Friedman test was performed to assess the significance between file systems.


No significant difference was found between the file systems regarding apical transportation and centering ratio values (p > 0.05). Transportation in the mesial direction was greater than the distal transportation for both file systems.


Considering apical transportation and centering ratio in curved canals, two systems provided similar results.

Clinical significance

Preparation up to One Shape Apical 1 or ProTaper Next X3 was shown similar results regarding apical transportation and centering ratio. Both systems were safe to use in curved molar root canals.

How to cite this article

Uzunoglu E, Turker SA. Comparison of Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio by Cone-beam Computed Tomography after Preparation with Different File Systems. J Contemp Dent Pract 2015;16(5):360-365.

PDF Share
  1. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974 Apr;18(2):269-296.
  2. In: Cleaning and shaping the root canal system. Cohen S, Bums RC, editors. St Louis: Mosby; 2002.
  3. A reconstructed computerized tomographic comparison of Ni-Ti rotary GT files versus traditional instruments in canals shaped by novice operators. Int Endod J 2001 Sep;34(6):476-484.
  4. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickeltitanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011 Oct;37(10):1398-1401.
  5. Microscopic computerized tomographic evaluation of root canal transportation prepared with twisted or ground nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011 Dec;112(6):143-148.
  6. Canal shapes produced sequentially during instrumentation with Quantec LX rotary nickel-titanium instruments: a study in simulated canals. Int Endod J 2000 Jul;33(4):346-354.
  7. Intraradicular bacteria and fungi in root-filled, asymptomatic human teeth with therapy-resistant periapical lesions: a longterm light and electron microscopic follow-up study. J Endod 1990 Dec;16(12):580-588.
  8. The influence of the method of canal preparation on the quality of apical and coronal obturation. J Endod 1979 Oct;5(10):298-304.
  9. Shaping of simulated root canals in resin blocks using the step-back technique with K-files manipulated in a simple in/out filling motion. Int Endod J 1989 May;22(3):107-117.
  10. Metallurgical characterization of a new nickel-titanium wire for rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod 2009 Nov;35(11):1589-1593.
  11. An overview of the mechanical properties of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. Endod Topics 2013 Sep;29(1):42-54.
  12. Available at: http://http:/ Accessed on: 2014 October 10.
  13. Shaping ability of ProTaper NEXT and BT-RaCe nickel-titanium instruments in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2014; doi:10.1111/iej.12375. [Epub ahead of print].
  14. Comparative Study of Different Novel Nickel-Titanium Rotary Systems for Root Canal Preparation in Severely Curved Root Canals. J Endod 2014 Jun;40(6):852-856.
  15. Evaluat ion of Root Canal Transportation, Centering Ratio, and Remaining Dentin Thickness Associated with ProTaper Next Instruments with and without Glide Path. J Endod 2014 Dec;40(12):2053-2056.
  16. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2013 Jun;46(6):590-597.
  17. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of M two versus coated and uncoated EasyShape instruments in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2011 May;44(5):447-457.
  18. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971 Aug;32(2):271-275.
  19. Comparison of nickeltitanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996 Jul;22(7):369-375.
  20. A comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and RaCe rotary instruments. J Endod 2012 Jul;38(7):990-992.
  21. Influence of single-file endodontics on apical transportation in curved root canals: an ex vivo micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2014 May;40(5):717-720.
  22. A methodology for evaluation of root canal instrumentation. J Endod 1987 May;13(5):243-245.
  23. The endodontic cube: a system designed for evaluation of root canal anatomy and canal preparation. J Endod 2001 Aug;27(8):533-536.
  24. Comparative micro-computed tomography evaluation of apical root canal transportation with the use of ProTaper, RaCe and Safesider systems in human teeth. Aust Endod J 2014 Apr;40(1):12-16.
  25. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: A comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007 Aug;33(8):962-965.
  26. Interpretation basics of cone beam computed tomography. In:Gonzalez SM, editor. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2015;2015: Article ID 130115. DOI: 10.15713/ins.ijcdmr.34.
  27. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Braz Dent J 2012;23(3):179-191.
  28. Dosimetry of 3 CBCT devices for oral and maxillofacial radiology: CB Mercuray, NewTom 3G and i-CAT. Dentomaxillofac Radiol 2006 Jul;35(4):219-226.
  29. Operational principles for cone-beam computed tomography. J Am Dent Assoc 2010 Oct;141(Suppl 3):3S-6S.
  30. The role of apical size determination and enlargement in the reduction of intracanal bacteria. J Endod 2007 Jan;33(1):21-23.
  31. Does the first file to bind correspond to the diameter of the canal in the apical region? Int Endod J 2002 Mar;35(3):264-267.
  32. Determination of the minimum instrumentation size for penetration of irrigants to the apical third of root canal systems. J Endod 2006 May;32(5):417-420.
  33. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2015 Feb;48(2):131-136.
  34. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Topics 2006 Nov;15(1):75-90.
  35. Evaluation of remaining dentine thickness using wave one and one shape file system with cone beam computed tomography. Int J Contemp Dent Med Rev 2014;2014: Article ID 071114, doi: 10.157139 ins.ijcdmr.23.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.