Shaping ability of rotatory or reciprocating instruments in curved canals: a micro-computed tomographic study

Abstract

This study aimed to compare apical transportation, centering ratio, and working time during root canal preparation with Wizard Navigator (WN), WaveOne (WO), or ProTaper Universal (PT) and to describe deformation and fracture of these instruments. Thirty-six mesiobuccal roots from maxillary molars were micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) scanned and then sorted into three groups (n = 12): Wizard Navigator (WN), WaveOne (WO), and ProTaper Universal (PT). The root canals were prepared using WN, WO, or PT; the time of each canal preparation was timed; and the specimens were micro-CT re-scanned. The instruments were submitted to scanning electron microscopy (SEM) before and after their use. The data on canal transportation at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm and preparation time were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis test, followed by the Mann-Whitney U test. The centering ratio was analyzed by ANOVA, followed by Tukey’s test. Both instrument deformation and fracture were described. Apical transportation was similar among groups at 1, 2, 3 and 4 mm. The WO group showed higher canal transportation at 5mm than the other groups (p = 0.03). There was no significant difference in centering ratio among the groups. Preparation time in the WO group was significantly lower than in the other groups (p = 0.004). Small differences were observed in the surface area of all instruments. The WN, WO, and PT groups had a similar centering ratio without procedural errors or significant structural changes. At 5 mm from the apex, the WO group showed the largest canal transportation toward the furcation and root canal preparation was faster than in the WN and PT groups.

Reciprocating Instrument; Rotatory Instrument; Micro-CT; Root Canal Preparation