INTRODUCTION: This study compared the shaping ability of ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, Tulsa, OK) and BT-RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) instrument systems in the mesial canals of mandibular molars using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 17 type IV mesial roots of extracted first mandibular molars were scanned using micro-CT imaging before and after root canal preparation with the 2 instrument systems. Both systems were used in the same root but alternating the mesial canals from root to root. The following parameters were analyzed: root canal volume, surface area, unprepared surface areas, transportation, canal/root width ratio, and preparation time. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 systems for all evaluated parameters (P > .05). The unprepared surface areas for the full canal length and the apical 5-mm segment were 33% and 14% for BT-RaCe and 31% and 14% for ProTaper Next, respectively. After preparation, all root canals had a diameter that was not larger than 35% of the root diameter at the coronal and middle segments. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 systems showed no differences in any of the evaluated shaping parameters. None of the tested systems put the roots at risk of fracture because of excessive dentin removal.
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the shaping ability of ProTaper Next (Dentsply Sirona, Tulsa, OK) and BT-RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) instrument systems in the mesial canals of mandibular molars using micro-computed tomographic (micro-CT) imaging. METHODS: A total of 17 type IV mesial roots of extracted first mandibular molars were scanned using micro-CT imaging before and after root canal preparation with the 2 instrument systems. Both systems were used in the same root but alternating the mesial canals from root to root. The following parameters were analyzed: root canal volume, surface area, unprepared surface areas, transportation, canal/root width ratio, and preparation time. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between the 2 systems for all evaluated parameters (P > .05). The unprepared surface areas for the full canal length and the apical 5-mm segment were 33% and 14% for BT-RaCe and 31% and 14% for ProTaper Next, respectively. After preparation, all root canals had a diameter that was not larger than 35% of the root diameter at the coronal and middle segments. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 systems showed no differences in any of the evaluated shaping parameters. None of the tested systems put the roots at risk of fracture because of excessive dentin removal.