The purpose of this study was to compare the root canal shaping ability of 4 rotary NiTi instruments in simulated root canals.

For the preparation of thirty two curved root canals, Mtwo instruments using "single length"technique, and Profile, ProTaper Universal, and K3 using crown-down technique (N = 8) were used. All canal samples were prepared by reaching an apical canal size of #30. Pre- and post-instrumentation digital images were recorded and an assessment of canal shape was determined using a computer image analysis program SigmaScan Pro (Systat Software Inc., San Jose, CA, USA). The changes of the dimension of inner walls of canals, (2) the changes of the dimension of outer walls of canals, and (3) the centering ratio were measured at 7 measuring points, and then data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA and Duncan's test. The results were as below;

The root canal shaping ability of Profile was significantly faster than that of other rotary NiTi instruments (p < 0.05).

Results suggest that in the coronal part of canal preparation, active cutting files such as ProTaper Universal may efficiently flare the canal orifice and form a better taper, and in the apical part of the canal, files which have a better centering ability such as Profile may maintain the original canal curvature and reduce the shaping time.

Currently, various Nickel-Titanium rotary files are used in endodontic treatment, but there is no one perfect system that can be applied to any clinical situation. Therefore, the combined uses of various file systems which can emphasize the advantages of each system are introduced as hybrid instrumentation.

The ProTaper system is efficient in body shaping and apical pre-enlargement but is reported to have more possibility of transportation and produce more aberrations and deformation in more or less severe curved canals. Recently, new ProTaper system (ProTaper Universal) with different configuration and cross-sectional design to overcome the week points of ProTaper have been marketed.

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping abilities of ProTaper, ProTaper Universal system, and two hybrid methods using S-series of ProTaper Universal and Hero Shaper or ProFile.

The time lapses for instrumentation were measured and the used files were inspected for distortion. The pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed to evaluate the aberrations and reduction of root canal curvature and change of radius of canal curvature. The increased canal width and apical centering ratio were calculated at 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm levels from apical foramen.

Under the conditions of this study, the ProTaper Universal seems to have better shaping ability than ProTaper in terms of instrumented width and instrumentation time. It may be suggested that the ProTaper Universal system is efficient as much as hybrid instrumentation using ProTaper and other constant-tapered NiTi file systems in highly experienced operators.

The aims of this study were to compare the shaping effect and safety between single length technique recommended by manufacturer and crown-down technique using Mtwo rotary file and to present a modified method in use of Mtwo file.

Sixty simulated root canal resin blocks were used. The canals were divided into three groups according to instrument and the manner of using methods. Each group had 20 specimens. Group MT was instrumented with single length technique of Mtwo, group MC was instrumented with crowndown technique of Mtwo and group PT was instrumented with crown-down technique of ProTaper. All of the rotary files used in this study were operated by an electric motor. The scanned canal images of before and after preparation were superimposed. These superimposed images were evaluated at apical 1 to 8 mm levels. Angle changes were calculated. The preparation time, weight loss, instrument failure and binding, canal aberrations, and centering ratio were measured. Statistical analysis of the three experimental groups was performed with ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range tests for post-hoc comparison and Fisher's exact test was done for the frequency comparison.

In total preparation time, group MT and group MC were less than group PT. In the aberrations, group MT had more elbows than those of group MC and group PT. The binding of group MC was least and group MT was less than group PT (P < 0.05).

Under the condition of this study, crown-down technique using Mtwo rotary file is better and safer method than single length technique recommended by the manufacturer.

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of three Ni-Ti file systems used by dental students or the experts and consequently to aid in choosing a proper systems for educational courses of dental students and beginners.

Fifty students and ten dentists who have clinical experience over two years prepared 180 simulated root canals in resin blocks with three Ni-Ti systems; ProFile® (PF), HeroShaper® (HS), K3^TM (K3).

After preparation, the Ni-Ti files were evaluated for distortion and canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented canals were scanned and superimposed. Amounts of increased canal widths, deviation, and centering ratio were calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5 mm levels and statistical analysis was performed.

The results were as follows:

HS showed the shortest preparation time and instrumented canal width in K3 was significantly larger than other groups (P < 0.05).

Based on the results, it is surmised that the ProFile® is the safest and most ideal instrument for students and beginners.

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the two different Ni-Ti file systems and the two different engine systems in simulated canals.

A total of four groups of each 10 were tested. Each group was instrumented with HeroShaper®and Endo-Mate2® (Group HE), HeroShaper® and Tecnika® (Group HT), ProFile® and Endo-Mate2® (Group PE), and ProFile® and Tecnika® (Group PT).

Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of increased width and centering ratio were measured and calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5 mm levels.

These data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test

The results of this study were as follows;

1. Canal preparation time of HT group was the shortest (p < 0.05).

2. The amount of increased canal width in HE group was significantly larger than PT group at apical 1 mm level (p < 0.05). At apical 3 mm level, PT group was significantly smaller than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, PE group was significantly larger than PT group (p < 0.05).

3. The amount of centering ratio in HE group was significantly larger than other groups (p < 0.05). At apical 5 mm level, HT group was significantly larger than PE group and PT group (p < 0.05).

Under the condition of this study, torque-controlled endodontic motor is safer than no torque controlled motor, especially when the active file is used.

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the three ProTaper® instrumentation techniques in simulated canals.

Thirty resin blocks were divided into 3 groups with 10 canals each. Each group was instrumented with manual ProTaper® (Group M), rotary ProTaper® (Group R), and hybrid technique (Group H). Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of canal deviation, total canal width, inner canal width, outer canal width and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mm levels.

1. Canal preparation time was the shortest in R group (p < 0.05).

2. The amounts of total canal width in R group was generally larger than the other groups, but no significant differences were observed except at the 1, 3 mm levels (p > 0.05).

3. The amounts of inner canal width in R group was larger than M group at the 1 mm level and H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05). The amounts of outer canal width in R group was larger than H group only at the 1 mm level (p < 0.05).

4. The direction of canal deviation in H, R group at the 1, 2, 3 mm levels was outward and that in M group at the 1, 2 mm levels was inward. The amounts of canal deviation in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05).

5. The amounts of centering ratio in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05).

The purpose of this study was to compare and evaluate the shaping ability of the three different Ni-Ti file systems used by undergraduate students.

Fifty undergraduate students prepared 150 simulated curved root canals in resin blocks with three Ni-Ti file systems - ProFile® (PF), Manual ProTaper® (MPT), Rotary ProTape® (RPT). Every student prepared 3 simulated root canals with each system respectively. After root canal preparation, the Ni-Ti files were evaluated for distortion or breakage. Assessments were made according to the presence of various types of canal aberrations. The pre- and post-instrumented canal images were attained and superimposed. The instrumented root canal width were measured and calculated for the net transportation (deviation) and the centering ratio.

Under the condition of this study, both ProTaper® systems allowed significantly more removal of root canal wall than the ProFile® system. In the important other aspects such as the centering ratio, there was no significant differences between the systems. Novice dental students were able to prepare curved root canals with any kinds of Ni-Ti file systems with little aberration and great conservation of tooth structure. Students want to learn effective methods and at the same time simple rotary procedures. The rotary ProTaper® systems were one of the most compatible to these students from the point of view of cutting ability. The ProFile® system was also compatible in safe and gentle shaping.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping abilities of four different rotary nickel-titanium instruments with anticurvature motion to prepare root canal at danger zone by measuring the change of dentin thickness in order to have techniques of safe preparation of canals with nickel-titanium files.

Mesiobuccal and mesiolingual canals of forty mesial roots of extracted human lower molars were instrumented using the crown-down technique with ProFile, GT™ Rotary file, Quantec file and ProTaper™. In each root, one canal was prepared with a straight up-and-down motion and the other canal was with an anticurvature motion. Canals were instrumented until apical foramens were up to size of 30 by one operator. The muffle system was used to evaluate the root canal preparation. After superimposing the pre- and post-instrumentation canal, change in root dentin thickness was measured at the inner and outer sides of the canal at 1, 3, and 5 mm levels from the furcation. Data were analyzed using two-way ANOVA.

Root dentin thickness at danger zone was significantly thinner than that at safe zone at all levels (p < 0.05).

There was no significant difference in the change of root dentin thickness between the straight up-and-down and the anticurvature motions at both danger and safe zones in all groups (p > 0.05).

ProTaper removed significantly more dentin than other files especially at furcal 3 mm level of danger and safe zones (p < 0.05)

Therefore, it was concluded that anticurvature motion with nickel-titanium rotary instruments does not seem to be effective in danger zone of lower molars.