Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Winter;12(1):43-49.
doi: 10.22037/iej.2017.09.

Transportation and Centering Ability of Neoniti and ProTaper Instruments; A CBCT Assessment

Affiliations

Transportation and Centering Ability of Neoniti and ProTaper Instruments; A CBCT Assessment

Zahrasadat Madani et al. Iran Endod J. 2017 Winter.

Abstract

Introduction: Transportation is an important iatrogenic endodontic error which might cause failure. This study evaluated the canal transportation caused by Neoniti and ProTaper instruments, using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) cross sections.

Methods and materials: This in vitro experimental study was performed on 40 mesiobuccal roots of maxillary first molars. The teeth were scanned with CBCT. They were randomly divided into 2 groups (n=20) that were prepared using either Neoniti or ProTaper files. An endodontist prepared the canal according to the manufacturer's guidelines. Prepared canals were re-scanned. The pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation CBCT volumes were sectioned at 1 to 9-mm distances from the apex. The extent of canal dentine removal in mesial and distal directions were measured in each cross-section. Canal transportation and instrument centering ability were estimated based on the extents of root wall removal and were compared in both groups.

Results: The groups were rather similar in terms of transportation and centering ability (P>0.05). However, canal preparation on mesial and distal walls was statistically significantly less in the Neoniti group, at most cross-sections. Transportation of both groups was not significantly different (P>0.05). Centering ability of both instruments was not significantly different (P>0.05).

Conclusion: Neoniti and ProTaper instruments might have proper centering ability and minimum transportations. Both instruments might cause similar extents of transportation and centering abilities.

Keywords: Centering Ability; Nickel Titanium Instruments; Root Canal Preparation; Root Canal Treatment; Transportation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A schematic figure, showing the cross-section of non-instrumented canal (black small ovoid) and prepared canal (red circle). In this diagram, Y1 and X1 are wall widths before instrumentation, while Y2 and X2 are wall widths after instrumentation. Rd and Rm are the extents of wall removal from distal and mesial walls, respectively; Rd=Y1–Y2; Rm=X1–X2. Transportation=Rd–Rm; Centering ability=Rd/Rm

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Karabucak B, Gatan AJ, Hsiao C, Iqbal MK. A comparison of apical transportation and length control between EndoSequence and Guidance rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010;36(1):123–5. - PubMed
    1. García M, Duran-Sindreu F, Mercadé M, Bueno R, Roig M. A comparison of apical transportation between ProFile and RaCe rotary instruments. J Endod. 2012;38(7):990–2. - PubMed
    1. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1971;32(2):271–5. - PubMed
    1. Madani ZS, Haddadi A, Haghanifar S, Bijani A. Cone-beam computed tomography for evaluation of apical transportation in root canals prepared by two rotary systems. Iran Endod J. 2014;9(2):109–12. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Alsudani D, Alshahrani S. A Comparison of the Canal Centering Ability of ProFile, K3, and RaCe Nickel Titanium Rotary Systems. J Endod. 2006;32(12):1198–201. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources