Abstract
Objective: The aim of the study was to compare the canal transportation and centering ability of Rotary ProTaper Next, Hyflex CM and Wave One primary systems using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) in curved root canals. Materials and Methods: Total 30 freshly extracted maxillary first molars having root canals with curvature between 10°- 20° were divided into three groups of 10 teeth each. All teeth were scanned by CBCT to determine the root canal shape before instrumentation. In Group 1, the canals were prepared with ProTaper Next files, in Group 2 with Hyflex CM files and in Group 3 with Wave One files. After preparation, post-instrumentation scan was performed. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were obtained at 3 mm and 6 mm above the apical foramen and were compared using CBCT software. The amount of canal transportation and centering ability were assessed and statistically compared with one way analysis of variance and Tukey honestly significant test. (p<0.05). Results: All instrumentation systems used resulted in some amount of canal transportation. Data obtained suggested that Wave One files caused significantly lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than Hyflex CM and Rotary ProTaper Next files. Conclusion: The canal preparation with Wave One files results in lesser transportation and better centering ability than Hyflex CM and ProTaper Next rotary files in curved root canals.
Cone-beam computed tomography analysis of curved root canals after mechanical preparation with three nickel-titanium rotary instruments