Related Experiment Video
Updated: Dec 31, 2025
Guided Endodontics: Three-Dimensional Planning and Template-Aided Preparation of Endodontic Access Cavities
Published on: May 24, 2022
Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Analysis of Shaping Ability of XP-endo Shaper and ProTaper Next in Large Root Canals
Burçin Arıcan Öztürk1, Ayfer Atav Ateş1, Erdoğan Fişekçioğlu2
1Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Istanbul Okan University, Istanbul, Turkey.
Introduction:
The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shaping abilities of the XPS (XP-endo Shaper) and PTN (ProTaper Next) systems by using cone-beam computed tomography on apical, middle, and coronal thirds of the pre-created large canals with different apical sizes.
Methods:
Seventy-two teeth with single canal were divided into 3 groups, and then large root canals were created with apical diameter #30 (Group 1), #35 (Group 2), or #40 (Group 3) by using hand files. Each group was again divided into 2 experimental groups, and root canals were instrumented with either XPS or PTN. Canals were scanned before and after instrumentation by using cone-beam computed tomography scanner to evaluate mesiodistal transportation, buccolingual transportation, centering ratio, percent increased prepared area (PA) (mm2), and percent increased prepared outline (PO) (mm) at 2, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. Data were statistically analyzed, and the significance level was set at P < .05.
Results:
There were no statistically significant differences in PA, PO, and centering ratio values between instruments in size 30 and size 35. The mean increases in PA and PO (P < .021) were statistically higher with XPS in size 40. PTN had statistically higher buccolingual transportation in size 30 and size 35. XPS had lower mesiodistal transportation values in all 3 apical sizes.
Conclusions:
PTN system is able to remove the dentin even in cases of increased apical diameter. However, XPS has less canal transportation and better centering ability compared with PTN.
