Shaping ability of ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and ProTaper Next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the ProTaper Universal (PTU; Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), WaveOne (WO; Dentsply Maillefer) and ProTaper Next (PTN; Dentsply Maillefer) in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals respectively.

30 simulated L-shaped and 30 simulated S-shaped root canals in resin blocks were employed and randomly divided into 3 groups (n = 10), respectively. The canals were prepared to a tip size 25 using PTU, WO or PTN: PTU F2 (taper 0.08 over the first 3 mm from apical tip), WO Primary (taper 0.08 over the first 3 mm from apical tip), and PTN X2 (taper 0.06 over the first 3 mm from apical tip). Photos of the simulated root canals were taken pre- and postinstrumentation. The 2 layers were superimposed after a series of image processing and 10 points were selected from apical constriction with 1 mm interval. And then the central axis transportation and straightened curvature were measured with software of image analysis.

In simulated L-shaped root canals, PTU and PTN caused less transportation than WO at curved section (P < 0.05), and PTN caused the least transportation at apical constriction (P < 0.05). Moreover, PTN maintained the canal curvature best among the 3 groups (P < 0.05). But PTN produced more transportation at straight section compared with PTU and WO (P < 0.05). In simulated S-shaped root canals, PTN preserved the coronal curvature best (P < 0.05), but there was no significant difference in apical curvature since all the files straightened the curvature obviously.

PTN showed a better shaping ability than PTU and WO at the curved section of root canals, and PTN maintained the best apical constriction. But all the files had a tendency to straighten the apical curvature in multi-curved canals.