The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 20 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2019 ) > List of Articles


Shaping Ability of HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next Rotary Instruments in Curved Root Canals: A Micro-CT Study

Ahmed K Turkistani, Madiha M Gomaa, Lubna A Shafei, Loai Alsofi, Abdul Majeed, Emad AlShwaimi

Keywords : Canal transportation, Centering ability, Curved canal, HyFlex EDM, Micro computed tomography, ProTaper Next

Citation Information : Turkistani AK, Gomaa MM, Shafei LA, Alsofi L, Majeed A, AlShwaimi E. Shaping Ability of HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next Rotary Instruments in Curved Root Canals: A Micro-CT Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019; 20 (6):680-685.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2579

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 01-06-2019

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2019; The Author(s).


Aim: The aim of this study is to evaluate and compare the shaping ability of HyFlex™ EDM (HFEDM) and ProTaper Next (PTN) rotary instruments in curved root canals by using micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) imaging. Materials and methods: A total of 22 mandibular molar teeth having separate mesial canals with 20 to 30° curvatures were randomly divided into two groups and instrumented with HFEDM (OneFile) or PTN (X1 and X2). Pre- and post-instrumentation micro-CT scans were obtained. Mesiodistal canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated in four cross-sections (2, 4, 6, and 8 mm from apex). Changes in canal volume and surface area were measured for a 10-mm standardized area of interest. Kolmogorov–Smirnov and Shapiro–Wilk tests were used to assess the normality and homogeneity. Independent and paired t tests and one-way ANOVA were used to analyze data at the p < 0.05 level. Results: Compared to PTN, HFEDM showed significantly less mesiodistal canal transportation and improved centering ability in cross-section L6 (p < 0.05). The instruments showed similar increases in volume and surface area of the canals, with minor insignificant differences. Conclusion: HFEDM and PTN files were safe to use in curved canals and showed similar shaping ability, while respecting the original anatomies. HFEDM OneFile performed better at the vicinity of the danger zone in terms of mesiodistal canal transportation and centering ability.

PDF Share
  1. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004 Aug;30(8):559–667.
  2. Wei Z, Cui Z, et al. A comparison of the shaping ability of three nickeltitanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomography study via a contrast radiopaque technique in vitro. BMC Oral Health 2017 Jan 9;17(1):39. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-016-0326-5.
  3. Pereira ES, Viana AC, et al. Behavior of nickel-titanium instruments manufactured with different thermal treatments. J Endod 2015 Jan;41(1):67–71. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.06.005.
  4. Alrahabi M. Comparative study of root-canal shaping with stainless steel and rotary NiTi files performed by preclinical dental students. Technol Health Care 2015;23(3):257–265. DOI: 10.3233/THC-150895.
  5. Hülsmann M, Peters OA, et al. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 2005 Marh;10(1):30–76.
  6. Ye J, Gao Y. Metallurgical characterization of M-Wire nickel-titanium shape memory alloy used for endodontic rotary instruments during low-cycle fatigue. J Endod 2012 Jan;38(1):105–107. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2011.09.028.
  7. Gao Y, Gutmann JL, et al. Evaluation of the impact of raw materials on the fatigue and mechanical properties of ProFile Vortex rotary instruments. J Endod 2012 Mar;38(3):398–401. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2011.11.004.
  8. Silva EJ, Vieira VC, et al. Quantitative transportation assessment in curved canals prepared with an off-centered rectangular design system. Braz Oral Res 2016;30(1):e43. DOI: 10.1590/1807-3107.
  9. Ruddle CJ, Machtou P, et al. The shaping movement: fifth-generation technology. Dent Today 2013 Apr;32(4):94, 96–99.
  10. Zhao D, Shen Y, et al. Micro-computed tomography evaluation of the preparation of mesiobuccal root canals in maxillary first molars with Hyflex CM, Twisted Files, and K3 instruments. J Endod 2013 Mar;39(3):385–388. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2012.11.030.
  11. Pirani C, Iacono F, et al. HyFlex EDM: superficial features, metallurgical analysis and fatigue resistance of innovative electro discharge machined NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2016 May;49(5): 483–493. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12470.
  12. Testarelli L, Plotino G, et al. Bending properties of a new nickel– titanium alloy with a lower percent by weight of nickel. J Endod 2011 Sep;37(9):1293–1295. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.05.023.
  13. Kaval ME, Capar ID, et al. Evaluation of the cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of novel nickel–titanium rotary files with various alloy properties. J Endod 2016 Dec;42(12):1840–1843. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2016.07.015.
  14. Pedulla E, Lo Savio F, et al. Torsional and cyclic fatigue resistance of a new nickel–titanium instrument manufactured by electrical discharge machining. J Endod 2016 Jan;42(1):156–159. DOI: 10.1016/j. joen.2015.10.004.
  15. Moore J, Fitz-Walter P, et al. A micro-computed tomographic evaluation of apical root canal preparation using three instrumentation techniques. Int Endod J 2009 Dec;42(12):1057–1064. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2009.01626.x.
  16. Gambill JM, Alder M, et al. Comparison of nickel–titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996 Jul;22(7):369–375. DOI: 10.1016/S0099- 2399(96)80221-4
  17. Venino PM, Citterio CL, et al. A micro-computed tomography evaluation of the shaping ability of two nickel–titanium instruments, HyFlex EDM and ProTaper Next. J Endod 2017 Apr;43(4):628–632. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.022.
  18. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971 Aug;32(2):271–275.
  19. Paque F, Barbakow F, et al. Root canal preparation with Endo-Eze AET: changes in root canal shape assessed by micro-computed tomography. Int Endod J 2005 Jul;38(7):456–464.
  20. Iqbal MK, Firic S, et al. Comparison of apical transportation between ProFile™ and ProTaper™ NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004 Jun;37(6):359–364.
  21. Paque F, Zehnder M, et al. Microtomography-based comparison of reciprocating single-file F2 ProTaper technique versus rotary full sequence. J Endod 2011;37:1394–1397. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.031.
  22. Barbosa-Ribeiro M, Albergaria SJ, et al. Canal transportation and centering ability of curved root canals prepared using rotary and reciprocating systems. Braz J Oral Sci 2015 Sep;14(3):214–218.
  23. Saber SE, Nagy MM, et al. 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. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12291.
  24. Peters OA, Laib A, et al. Three-dimensional analysis of root canal geometry by high-resolution computed tomography. J Dent Res 2000 Jun;79(6):1405–1409. DOI: 10.1177/00220345000790060901.
  25. Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.09.001.
  26. Capar ID, Ertas H, et al. 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. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.010.
  27. Zhao D, Shen Y, et al. Root canal preparation of mandibular molars with 3 nickel–titanium rotary instruments: a micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2014 Nov;40(11):1860–1864. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.06.023.
  28. Lim YJ, Park SJ, et al. Comparison of the centering ability of Wave One and Reciproc nickel–titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013 Feb;38(1):21–25. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.21.
  29. Bürklein S, Börjes L, et al. Comparison of preparation of curved root canals with Hyflex CM and Revo-S rotary nickel–titanium instruments. Int Endod J 2014 May;47(5):470–476. DOI: 10.1111/iej.12171.
  30. Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, et al. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012 May;45(5):449–461. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365- 2591.2011.01996.x.
  31. Madani Z, Soleymani A, et al. Transportation and centering ability of Neoniti and ProTaper Instruments; A CBCT assessment. Iran Endod J 2017 Winter;12(1):43–49. DOI: 10.22037/iej.2017.09.
  32. Ghobashy A, Nagy M, et al. Shaping ability of single versus multi file rotary Ni–Ti systems in curved root canals. Tanta Dent J 2016 Apr 1;13(2):68.
  33. Gu Y, Kum KY, et al. Various heat-treated nickel–titanium rotary instruments evaluated in S-shaped simulated resin canals. J Dent Sci 2017 Mar 1;12(1):14–20. DOI: 10.1016/j.jds.2016.04.006.
  34. Wu MK, Fan B, et al. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part i: effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000 Apr;26(4):210–216. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200004000- 00003.
  35. Olivieri JG, Stöber E, et al. In vitro comparison in a manikin model: increasing apical enlargement with K3 and K3XF rotary instruments. J Endod 2014 Sep;40(9):1463–1467. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2014.02.023.
  36. Wu H, Peng C, et al. Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals. BMC Oral Health 2015 Mar 1;15:27. DOI: 10.1186/s12903-015-0012-z.
  37. Ferrara G, Taschieri S, et al. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of two different nickel–titanium rotary files in curved root canals of extracted human molar teeth. J Investig Clin Dent 2017 Feb;8(1):1–9. DOI: 10.1111/jicd.12187.
  38. Celikten B, Uzuntas CF, et al. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of two nickel–titanium rotary systems using cone beam computed tomography. BMC Oral Health 2015 Mar 10;15:32. DOI: 10.1186/s12903- 015-0019-5.
  39. Pongione G, Pompa G, et al. Flexibility and resistance to cyclic fatigue of endodontic instruments made with different nickel–titanium alloys: a comparative test. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2012 Jul;3(3–4):119–122.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.