To evaluate the performance of the XP-endo® Shaper and ProTaper® Next instruments, in the preparation of long-oval canals, using computed microtomography (micro-CT) technology (n = 10)
Root canal preparation led to a significant increase in all the parameters (volume, surface area, structure model index (SMI), and untouched walls) tested in each group . There was no significant difference in the percentage increase in volume (107.50%–93.13%), surface area (27.74%–29.68%), or intact canal wall (13.08%–11.74%) between XP-S and PTN X4, respectively
Microtomographic evaluation of oval canal preparations with WaveOne Gold (G1), TRUShape (G2), EdgeCoil (G3), and XP-3D Shaper (G4) instruments (n = 8)
There was no statistically significant difference between the groups for any of the rotary instruments used (P, 0.05). The percentages of untouched walls were as follows: G1: 50.09%, G2: 55.26%, G3: 38.09% E, and G4: 52.28% relative to volume, and the following data were found: G1 22.44%, G2: 19.69%, G3: 27.31% E, and G4: 17.71%; when evaluating the surface area, G1: 19.65%, G2: 14.05%, G3: 24.34% E, and G4: 14.23%
To evaluate the preparation capacity of XP-Endo Shaper and Mtwo in oval canals, by means of micro-CT (n = 20)
None of the systems evaluated could prepare the entire length of the root canal, and there were no statistical differences relative to untouched areas throughout the entire length of the root canal between XP-endo Shaper and Mtwo (14.19% and 12.51%, respectively). When the apical third was analysed, the Shaper was more effective, leading to a lower percentage of unprepared area (22%), when compared with the Mtwo system (30%)
To evaluate the preparation capacity of TRUShape and Vortex Blue instruments in oval canals, by using micro-CT (n = 15)
The preparation capacity of TRUShape (45.08%) in oval canals was similar to that of Vortex Blue (42.99%). TRUShape significantly improved the surface treatment. No file system was capable of coming in contact with or completely preparing the entire surface of the root canal in oval canals
Use microtomography to evaluate the shaping capacity of the systems. BioRace, Reciproc, Self-Adjusting File (SAF), and TRUShape systems (n = 10)
The preparation techniques did not affect the percentage of hard tissue residues that accumulated . The percentage of untouched canal areas was significantly higher for BioRace (32.38%), and Reciproc (18.95%) with the results of the SAF system (16.08%) showing the least untouched area . The Reciproc system removed significantly more dentin (4.18%) in comparison with the BioRace (2.21%) and SAF (2.56%) systems
Evaluation of the root canal preparation performed with the XP-endo Shaper, iRace (R1, R2 and R3), and EdgeFile (X1 and X7) by means of micro-CT (n = 10)
The XP-Endo Shaper, iRace, and Edgefile showed similar shaping capacity. The mean value of untouched walls was 9.42% for XP-Endo Shaper, 8.17% for iRace, and 9.83% for EdgeFile. There was no significant difference in the quantity of untouched walls among the groups analysed
To evaluate the shaping capacity of XP-endo Shaper (G1) and compare the values with the results of Vortex Blue (G2) by means of micro-CT (n = 10)
XP-endo Shaper had significantly fewer untouched walls (38.6%) in comparison with Vortex Blue (58.8%). After preparation, the volume values were 41.3% (G1) and 19.6% (G2). The surface area found in G1 was 12.7% and for G2, 8.3%. Therefore, XP-Endo Shaper was capable of preparing and touching more walls than Vortex Blue
To evaluate the cleaning and preparation capacity of three instrumentation systems: Self-Adjusting File (G1), TRUShape (G2), and XP-endo Shaper (G3) (n = 11)
The mean number of untouched areas after preparation with G1, G2, and G3 were 10.92%, 17.45%, and 17.31%, respectively. The surface area was also evaluated, showing G1: 13.48%, G2: 9.39% E, and G3: 5.27%. The volume found was 63.11% for G1, 48.88% for G2, and 25.41% for G3
To evaluate the preparation capacity of TRUShape and Reciproc in oval canals, by means of micro-CT (n = 13)
The systems behaved in a similar manner in relation to the increase in root canal volume (23.30%–21.55%) and surface area (12.34%–13.74%), respectively. For TRUshape, the unprepared surface area was 24.11%, in comparison with 30.40% for Reciproc
