OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different shaping protocols on the root canal geometry and remaining dentin thickness of mandibular premolars with radicular grooves (RG) and two canals by means of micro-CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mandibular premolars with RG and two canals were matched based on their similar morphological dimensions and assigned to 2 experimental groups according to the canal preparation (n=8): XP-endo Shaper (XPS) and ProTaper Next (PTN) systems. Before and after preparation, morphometric measurements of the volume, surface area, structure model index, area, perimeter, roundness, major and minor diameters, as well as untouched canal walls, canal transportation, and dentin wall thickness were evaluated. Data were statistically compared within and between groups using the independent sample t test (α=5%). RESULTS: XPS revealed less changes in volume, surface area, area, perimeter, and major and minor diameters (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in structure model index (SMI), roundness, and percentage of untouched canal walls between groups (P>0.05). XPS resulted in less apical canal transportation and a higher remaining dentin thickness toward the RG compared to PTN in lingual canals (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: XPS revealed fewer changes in root canal geometry as well as lower transportation and a greater remaining dentin thickness in the lingual canals toward the RG compared to PTN. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Internal and external anatomical characteristics of mandibular premolars might have an influence on biomechanical preparation. Considering the risk of perforation, the canal preparation using XPS appears to be more conservative compared to PTN.
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of different shaping protocols on the root canal geometry and remaining dentin thickness of mandibular premolars with radicular grooves (RG) and two canals by means of micro-CT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Mandibular premolars with RG and two canals were matched based on their similar morphological dimensions and assigned to 2 experimental groups according to the canal preparation (n=8): XP-endo Shaper (XPS) and ProTaper Next (PTN) systems. Before and after preparation, morphometric measurements of the volume, surface area, structure model index, area, perimeter, roundness, major and minor diameters, as well as untouched canal walls, canal transportation, and dentin wall thickness were evaluated. Data were statistically compared within and between groups using the independent sample t test (α=5%). RESULTS: XPS revealed less changes in volume, surface area, area, perimeter, and major and minor diameters (P<0.05). There was no significant difference in structure model index (SMI), roundness, and percentage of untouched canal walls between groups (P>0.05). XPS resulted in less apical canal transportation and a higher remaining dentin thickness toward the RG compared to PTN in lingual canals (P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: XPS revealed fewer changes in root canal geometry as well as lower transportation and a greater remaining dentin thickness in the lingual canals toward the RG compared to PTN. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Internal and external anatomical characteristics of mandibular premolars might have an influence on biomechanical preparation. Considering the risk of perforation, the canal preparation using XPS appears to be more conservative compared to PTN.