Shaping ability of the profile 25/0.06 and protaper F2 in rotary motion, and reciproc in simulated canals

BACKGROUND: Since the introduction of nickel–titanium (Ni–Ti) instruments to dentistry, a wide variety of Ni–Ti instruments have become commercially available. These Ni–Ti instruments are expensive, which limits their usage in developing countries and forces practitioners to use instruments repeatedly. Another problem is the possible prion cross-contamination associated with the multiple usage of endodontic instruments. In addition, the use of these instruments requires new skills and experience. In this article, the shaping capacities of two conventional rotary file systems, ProFile 25/0.06 and ProTaper F2, were reviewed and compared with the Reciproc single-file system. METHODS: A total of 45 simulated canals with 40° curvature, in clear resin blocks, were prepared using conventional rotary systems consisting of ProFile orifice shaping (OS) #3 and final flaring #25/.06, Reciproc R25, and ProTaper shaping file SX and finishing file F2. Pre-and post-instrumentation images were analyzed at ten different levels, using AutoCAD 2007 software. The measurement positions were defined in 1-mm intervals: positions 0–3 established the apical part, positions 4–6 constituted the middle part, and positions 7–10 established the coronal part of the canal. The amount of removed resin, the transportation, instrumentation time, change in working length (WL), instrumentation fractures, and the presence of ledge were evaluated. Data were analyzed using ANOVA, Kruskal–Wallis and independent t-test (p < 0.001). RESULTS: ProFile removed the least resin (p < 0.001) and caused less transportation than Reciproc and ProTaper, in total (p < 0.001). ProTaper caused more transportation ProFile and Reciproc in the apical part (p < 0.000). Reciproc caused more transportation than ProTaper and ProFile (p < 0.001), and the transportation tendency toward the inner aspect of the curvature in the middle part. Reciproc caused the less transportation than ProFile and ProTaper in the coronal part. The transportations tended to occur toward the outside of the curvature, except the middle part with Reciproc and at points 5 and 6 with ProTaper. There were no significant differences among the groups in terms of maintaining the original WL. Reciproc was significantly faster than the others group (p < 0.001). Only one instrument fracture (25/0.06 ProFile) was noted. All groups showed one ledge each. DISCUSSION: The results of the present study showed that both ProFile 25/06 and ProTaper F2, combined with a file used for coronal enlargement (OS3 and SX), have the potential to create satisfactory canal shape in the curved root canals. Further studies using real human teeth are needed to confirm our results.