AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the canal transportation and canal centering ability in the preparation of curved root canals after instrumentation with V-Taper 2H, ProTaper Next (PN), and Hyflex CM files using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty mesiobuccal canals of mandibular molars with an angle of curvature ranging from 20 to 40 were divided according to the instrument used in canal preparation into three groups of ten samples each: V-Taper 2H (Group 1), PN (Group 2), and Hyflex CM (Group 3). The teeth were instrumented according to manufacturer's guidelines up to 30 no. apical preparation. Canals were scanned using a CBCT scanner before and after preparation to evaluate the transportation and centering ratio at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the apex. The amount of transportation and centering ability was assessed. The three groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test. RESULTS: All instruments maintained the original canal curvature with significant differences between the different files. Data suggested that V-Taper 2H files presented the best outcomes for both the variables evaluated. V-Taper 2H files caused lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than PN and Hyflex CM files. However, it was seen that PN caused less transportation in apical level than Hyflex CM. CONCLUSION: The canal preparation with V-Taper 2H showed lesser transportation and better centering ability than PN and Hyflex CM.
AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the canal transportation and canal centering ability in the preparation of curved root canals after instrumentation with V-Taper 2H, ProTaper Next (PN), and Hyflex CM files using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty mesiobuccal canals of mandibular molars with an angle of curvature ranging from 20 to 40 were divided according to the instrument used in canal preparation into three groups of ten samples each: V-Taper 2H (Group 1), PN (Group 2), and Hyflex CM (Group 3). The teeth were instrumented according to manufacturer's guidelines up to 30 no. apical preparation. Canals were scanned using a CBCT scanner before and after preparation to evaluate the transportation and centering ratio at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the apex. The amount of transportation and centering ability was assessed. The three groups were statistically compared with analysis of variance and post hoc Tukey test. RESULTS: All instruments maintained the original canal curvature with significant differences between the different files. Data suggested that V-Taper 2H files presented the best outcomes for both the variables evaluated. V-Taper 2H files caused lesser transportation and remained better centered in the canal than PN and Hyflex CM files. However, it was seen that PN caused less transportation in apical level than Hyflex CM. CONCLUSION: The canal preparation with V-Taper 2H showed lesser transportation and better centering ability than PN and Hyflex CM.