The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login



Volume / Issue

Online First

Related articles

VOLUME 23 , ISSUE 6 ( June, 2022 ) > List of Articles


Comparative Evaluation of Root Canal Centering Ability of ProTaper, Mtwo, WaveOne, and Reciproc Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: In Vitro Study

M Remya, Prabath Singh, Anju Varughese, Asha Joseph, Pallavi Chandran, Deepthy Subramanian, S Vijay Kumar

Keywords : Centering ability, Cone-beam computed tomography, Nickel–titanium rotary files

Citation Information : Remya M, Singh P, Varughese A, Joseph A, Chandran P, Subramanian D, Kumar SV. Comparative Evaluation of Root Canal Centering Ability of ProTaper, Mtwo, WaveOne, and Reciproc Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: In Vitro Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2022; 23 (6):589-592.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3360

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 23-09-2022

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2022; The Author(s).


Aim: To compare the centering ability of rotating (ProTaper and Mtwo) and reciprocating (WaveOne and Reciproc) file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Eighty extracted human mandibular molars with curvature within 15–45° were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n = 20): group I (ProTaper), group II (Mtwo), group III (WaveOne), and group IV (Reciproc). The selected teeth were arranged in a template, and pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation CBCT scans were taken using Kodak Carestream CS 9300 machine. The centering ability was measured in four planes namely, at furcation, 3 mm apical to furcation (coronal), 6 mm apical to furcation (middle), and 3 mm coronal to the apex (apical), wherein dentin thickness was measured from pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT scans and recorded for each canal (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual) separately and statistically analyzed. Results: Mtwo and Reciproc remained better centered followed by WaveOne and least by ProTaper in different-level comparisons. In the mesiodistal dimension (MD) at the 3 mm, 6 mm, and 3 mm apical level, Mtwo and Reciproc showed better centering, meanwhile, in the buccolingual dimension, only in the 3 mm apical level, Mtwo and Reciproc remain better centered. A significant difference was seen between the group and type of canal. Conclusion: Mtwo and Reciproc showed better centered preparation than ProTaper and WaveOne. Significant differences were seen between the groups and types of canal. Clinical significance: Root canal instrumentation should maintain the original canal anatomy. The proper enlargement keeping in mind the remaining strength in the tooth structure is essentially decided by how the selected instrument is centered. The alloy used for instrument manufacture and its design (taper, cross-section, and tip) will influence the centered preparation. The type of instrument and the instrumentation techniques should be chosen based on root canal anatomy.

PDF Share
  1. Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, et al. Canal-centering ability: An endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent 2009;12(1):3–9. DOI: 10.4103/0972-0707.53334.
  2. Thompson SA. An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endodont J 2000;44(0):297–310. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.2000.00339.x.
  3. Kumar SR, Gade V. Canal centering ability. Med Sci 2014;10(38):46–48. ISSN: 2321–7359.
  4. Troiano G, Dioguardi M, Cocco A, et al. Centering ability of ProTaper next and WaveOne classic in J-shape simulated root canals. Scientific World Journal 2016:1606013. DOI: 10.1155/2016/1606013.
  5. Marzouk AM, Ghoneim AG. Computed tomographic evaluation of canal shape instrumented by different kinematics rotary nickel-titanium systems. J Endod 2017;39(7):906–909. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.023.
  6. Torres D-U, González-Rodríguez MP, Ferrer-Luque CM. Shaping ability of Mtwo and twisted file rotary systems in curved root canals. J Clin Exp Dent 2012;4(5):e275–e280. DOI: 10.4317/jced.50867.
  7. Bryant ST, Dummer PMH, Pitoni C, et al. Shaping ability of .04 and .06 taper ProFile rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 1999;32(3):155–165. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00256.x.
  8. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: A comparative study. J Endod 2012;38(4):505–509. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.12.040.
  9. Hartmann MSM, Barletta FB. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: A comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007;33(8):962–965. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2007.03.019.
  10. Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, et al. Comparative analysis of canal centering ability of different single file systems using cone beam computed. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9(5):ZC06–ZC10. DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2015/12097.5863.
  11. Oliveira CAP, Meurer MI, Pascoalato C, et al. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of the apical third of curved roots after mechanical preparation with different automated systems. Braz Dent J 2009;20(5):376–381. DOI: 10.1590/s0103-64402009000500004.
  12. Elsherief SM, Zayet MK, Hamouda IM. Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Biomed Res 2013;27(4):326–335. DOI: 10.7555/JBR.27.20130008.
  13. Yang GB, Zhou XD, Zheng YL, et al. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007;40(9):707–714. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2007.01296.x.
  14. Schafer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006;39(3):196–202. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2006.01074.x.
  15. Yang G, Yuan G, Yun X. Effects of two nickel-titanium instrument systems, Mtwo versus ProTaper universal, on root canal geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011;37(10): 1412–1416. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2011.06.024.
  16. Javaheri HH, Javaheri GH. A comparison of three Ni-Ti rotary instruments in apical transportation. J Endod 2007;33(3):284–286. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2006.05.004.
  17. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, 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 2011:1–13. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2011.01996.
  18. Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC. Comparison of the centering ability of WaveOne and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013;38(1):21–25. DOI: 10.5395/rde.2013.38.1.21.
  19. Capar ID, Ertas H, Ok E, et al. Comparative study of different novel nickel-titanium rotary systems for root canal preparation in severely curved root. J Endod 2014;40(6):852–856. DOI: 10.1016/j.joen.2013.10.010.
  20. Ponce de Leon Del Bello T, Wang N, Roane JB. Crown-down tip design and shaping. J Endod 2003;29(8):513–518. DOI: 10.1097/00004770-200308000-00006.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.