Comparative Evaluation of the Shaping Ability of the Recent, Fifth-generation ProTaper Next and Revo-S NiTi Rotary Endodontic Files Using Three-dimensional Imaging: An Imaging-based Study

Abstract

Abstract Aim: The aim of the present study was to assess the shaping ability of the recent, fifth-generation ProTaper Next and Revo-S NiTi rotary endodontic files using three-dimensional imaging. Materials and Methods: For the present in vitro study, 100 freshly extracted mandibular first molars indicated for extraction due to periodontal reasons were collected, while samples were cleaned and the angle of curvature was determined using Weine’s method. The access cavity was prepared using Endo Access Kit, while samples were divided into four groups to be prepared by ProTaper Next and Revo-S rotary endodontic files with or without using Glide path. The canal preparations were done in conjunction with Endo Prep RC, while the shaping ability of the instruments was assessed on the basis of canal transportation and canal-centering ability as assessed from pre- and postoperative cone-beam computed tomography images acquired before and after instrumentation. Statistical analysis was done using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 16.0 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Kruskal–Wallis H-test was used to compare canal transportation and canal-centering ability of the two file systems among different groups. P <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Revo-S files when used with Glide path performed best at 2 mm distance from the apical portion of teeth with zero apical transportation in case of both mesiobuccal (MB) and mesiolingual canals. Furthermore, ProTaper Next files when used with or without Glide path showed higher canal-centering ability as compared to Revo-S files with the mean value being 0.83 ± 0.29 mm in either case when observed at 2 mm distance from the apical portion of teeth in case of MB canals. Conclusions: Within the limitations of the present study, the findings obtained in the study suggested that ProTaper Next files had optimal canal-centering ability within the canal as compared to Revo-S files.