Search

Objective:  This study compared the shaping ability of TRUShape and XP-endo Shaper systems on C-shaped root canals replicas using microcomputed tomography (micro-CT)., Material and Methods:  Thirty three-dimensional replicas based on a mandibular second molar classified as C1 type I C-shaped canal were randomly divided into two groups ( n  = 15): TRUShape (G.TRU) and XP-endo Shaper (G.XP) and instrumented with each system according to the manufacturer's instructions. Changes in volume and surface and the unprepared area of the root canal were measured by scanning on micro-CT before and after instrumentation., Results:  The unprepared areas were 39% in the G.TRU and 43% in the G.XP group with no significant difference between them ( p  > 0.05), but both the tested systems left a high percentage of unprepared root canal walls of C-shaped root canals., Conclusion:  TRUShape and XP-endo Shaper showed a high rate of unprepared areas with similar results after C-shaped root canals replicas for root canal preparation., Competing Interests: None declared., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)

Objective:  This study compared the shaping ability of the Hyflex CM and XP-endo Shaper rotary file systems in curved mesial canals of mandibular molars using micro-computed tomography., Material and Methods:  Seventeen mesial roots of extracted first mandibular molars with two independent mesial canals were scanned before and after root canal preparation with the tested rotatory file systems. Each mesial canal from the same specimen was prepared with one of the two systems. The parameters analyzed were canal centering (transportation) for the cervical, middle, and apical segments, as well as for the entire canal (0-10 mm from the apex); and canal volume increase, canal surface area increase, and unprepared canal walls for two segments, 0 to 4 mm and 0 to 10 mm from the apex., Results:  There was no significant difference between both systems regarding canal centering (transportation), volume increase, and unprepared canal walls for the 0 to 10 mm segment ( p > 0.05); however, a significant difference was observed for the 0 to 4 mm segment ( p <0.01), where the Hyflex CM left 28.46% of unprepared walls and XP-endo Shaper left 13.26%., Conclusions:  The shaping ability of the two tested rotatory file systems in mesial roots of first mandibular molars was similar for all parameters in all the segments evaluated, except for the 0 to 4 mm segment, where XP-endo Shaper left a smaller area of unprepared canal walls than Hyflex CM., Competing Interests: None declared., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction so long as the original work is properly cited. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).)