The purpose of this investigation was to compare centring ratio of ProTaper and Mtwo rotary systems. 60 mandibular molar teeth which had 25, 30 and 35 degree curvature in mesio-buccal root canal were used. Group 1 had 25°, Group 2 had 30°, and Group 3 had 35° curvatures. The roots were sectioned horizontally at 2 mm away from the apex. The apical region was then observed under a stereo-microscope. In each group, teeth were instrumented using ProTaper and Mtwo systems. After canal preparation, digital images of apical part of canals were taken. These images were then superimposed by using Adobe Photoshop CS2 programme. The data were analyzed using ANOVA and Student’s t-test.
No significant differences were found between each curvature degrees and rotary systems at the apical part of curved root canals (p<0.05).
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
1. Kandaswamy D Venkateshbabu N Porkodi I Pradeep G. Canal-centering ability: An endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent 2009; 12(1):3-9.
2. Park H. A comparison of Greater Taper files Profiles and stainless steel files to shape curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2001; 9:715-718.
3. Matwychuk MJ Bowles WR McClanahan SB Hodges JS Pesun IJ. Shaping abilities of two different engine-driven rotary Ni-Ti systems or stainless steel balanced-force technique in mandibular molars. J Endod 2007; 33:868-871.
4. Carvalho LA Bonetti I Borges MA. A comparison of molar root canal preparation using Stainless Steel and Ni-Ti instruments. J Endod 1999; 25:807-810.
5. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1976; 18:269-296.
6. Cohen S Burns RS et al. Pathways of the pulp. 8th ed. St Louis: CV Mosby 2002; pp 231-291.
7. Hülsmann M Schade M Schäfers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO642 and Quantec SC rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2001; 34:538-546.
8. Hülsmann M Peters OA Dummer PHM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals techniques and means. Endodontic Topics 2005; 10:30-76.
9. Peter OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod 2004; 30:559-567.
10. Alves VO Bueno CE Cunha RS Pinheiro SL Fontana CE de Martin AS. Comparison among manual instruments and PathFile and Mtwo rotary instruments to create a glide path in the root canal preparation of curved canals. J Endod 2012; 38(1):117-120.
11. Garip Y Günday M. The use of computed tomography when comparing nickel-titanium and stainless steel files during preparation of simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2001; 34:452-457.
12. Hyeon-Cheol Kim Gary Shun-Pan Cheung Chan-Joo Lee Byung-Min Kim Jeong-Kil Park Soon-Il Kang. Comparison of Forces Generated during Root Canal Shaping and Residual Stresses of Three Nickel-Titanium Rotary Files by Using a Three-Dimensional Finite-element Analysis. J Endod 2008; 34:743-747.
13. Edgar S Schulz-Bongert U Gabriel T. Comparison of Hand Stainless Steel and Nickel Titanium Rotary Instrumentation: A Clinical Study. J Endod 2004; 30:432-435.
14. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971; 32:271-275.
15. Al-Sudani D Al-Shahrani S. A Comparison of the Canal Centering Ability of ProFile K3 and RaCe Nickel Titanium Rotary Systems. J Endod 2006; 32:1198-1201.
16. Yang GB Zhou XD Zheng YL Zhang H Shu Y Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007; 40:707-714.
17. Aydın C Inan U Yasar S Bulucu B Tunca YM. Comparison of shaping ability of Race and Hero Shaper instruments in simulated curved canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2008; 105:e92-e97.
18. Abou-Rass M Frank AL Glick DH. The anticurvature filing method to prepare the curved root canal. J Am Dent Assoc 1980; 1001:792-794.
19. Thompson SA Dummer PMH. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 1. Int Endod J 2000; 33:248-254.
20. Thompson SA Dummer PMH. Shaping ability of Hero 642 rotary nickel-titanium instruments in simulated root canals: Part 2. Int Endod J 2000; 33:255-261.
21. Jodway B Hülsmann M. A comparative study of root canal preparation with NiTi-TEE and K3 rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2006; 39:71-80.
22. Schäfer E Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2004; 37:229-238.
23. Schäfer E Erler M Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006; 39:196-202.
24. Yang GB Zhou XD Zhang H Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J 2006; 39:791-799.
25. Paqué F Musch U Hülsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005; 38:8-16.
26. Guelzow A Stamm O Martus P Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005; 38:743-752.
27. Yang GB Zhou XD Zheng YL Zhang H Shu Y Wu HK. Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2007; 40:707-714.
28. Günday M Sazak H Garip Y. A comparative study of three different root canal curvature measurement techniques and measuring the canal access angle in curved canals. J Endod 2005; 31:796-98.
29. Foschi F Nucci C Montebugnoli L Marchionni S Breschi L Malagnino VA Prati C. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004; 37:832-839.
30. Berutti E Chiandussi G Gaviglio I Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus Profile. J Endod 2003; 29:15-19.