Comparative Evaluation of Root Canal Centering Ability of ProTaper, Mtwo, WaveOne, and Reciproc Using Cone-beam Computed Tomography: In Vitro Study

Abstract

Aim: To compare the centering ability of rotating (ProTaper and Mtwo) and reciprocating (WaveOne and Reciproc) file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and methods: Eighty extracted human mandibular molars with curvature within 15–45° were selected and randomly divided into four groups (n = 20): group I (ProTaper), group II (Mtwo), group III (WaveOne), and group IV (Reciproc). The selected teeth were arranged in a template, and pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation CBCT scans were taken using Kodak Carestream CS 9300 machine. The centering ability was measured in four planes namely, at furcation, 3 mm apical to furcation (coronal), 6 mm apical to furcation (middle), and 3 mm coronal to the apex (apical), wherein dentin thickness was measured from pre and post-instrumentation CBCT scans and recorded for each canal (mesiobuccal and mesiolingual) separately and statistically analyzed. Results: Mtwo and Reciproc remained better centered followed by WaveOne and least by ProTaper in different-level comparisons. In the mesiodistal dimension (MD) at the 3 mm, 6 mm, and 3 mm apical level, Mtwo and Reciproc showed better centering, meanwhile, in the buccolingual dimension, only in the 3 mm apical level, Mtwo and Reciproc remain better centered. A significant difference was seen between the group and type of canal. Conclusion: Mtwo and Reciproc showed better centered preparation than ProTaper and WaveOne. Significant differences were seen between the groups and types of canal.