Abstract

Aim

This study evaluated and compared the shaping ability of four rotary instrument systems in long–oval root canals using microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) evaluation. Currently, there is no data available on the canal shaping abilities of BlueShaper and DC Taper instruments.

Methodology

Sixty-four single-rooted mandibular premolars were matched based on similar root canal morphologic features as determined by (micro-CT) and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups (n = 16) according to the instrument system used: BlueShaper, TruNatomy, DC Taper and HyFlex EDM One File. Changes in the root canal surface and volume, remaining dentine thickness, and number of prepared areas were assessed.

Results

No significant differences were found amongst the four instrument systems for the parameters evaluated (p > .05). There was a significant reduction in the number of unprepared areas and the remaining dentine thickness after each increase in size of the instruments tested (p < .05).

Conclusions

The four instrument systems perform similarly in long oval root canals. Although none could prepare all canal walls, larger preparations incorporated significantly more surfaces in the final shape.

Keywords

3D surface scanning, computational fluid dynamics, endodontics, mechanical tests, reciprocating instruments