Malaika Varma*, Pankaj Kumar Gupta, Neha Jaju, Sonal Dhote and Sneha Rathaur

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai, India

*Corresponding Author: Malaika Varma, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rungta College of Dental Sciences and Research, Bhilai, India.

Received: September 09, 2025; Published: September 27, 2025

Abstract

Background: Root canal instrumentation plays a pivotal role in the success of endodontic treatment by enabling thorough cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. However, mechanical preparation can lead to undesirable alterations such as canal transportation, loss of working length, and deviation from the natural canal curvature. These procedural errors can compromise treatment outcomes. With advancements in endodontic instrumentation, NiTi rotary systems have evolved to offer improved flexibility and cutting efficiency while minimizing iatrogenic errors. Understanding how different file systems influence canal shaping is essential for clinical decision-making. Cone Beam Computed Tomography (CBCT), with its high-resolution 3D imaging, allows for accurate evaluation of canal morphology and the effects of instrumentation.

Aim: To compare and evaluate the canal transportation and centering ability of three different rotary file systems, ProTaper Next, NeoEndo Flex, and Jizai using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in an in-vitro setting.

Materials and Methods: An in vitro study was conducted using 105 extracted human mandibular premolars with single canals. Teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n=35 each) and instrumented using ProTaper Next, NeoEndo Flex, and Jizai rotary file systems. Pre- and post-instrumentation CBCT scans were obtained. Canal transportation and centering ability were measured at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm from the apex in both mesiodistal and buccolingual planes. Data were statistically analyzed using one-way ANOVA, with a significance threshold set at P < 0.05.

Results: In the mesiodistal plane, ProTaper Next demonstrated significantly better centering at 6 mm, while Jizai outperformed other systems at 9 mm (P = 0.044 and P = 0.018, respectively). NeoEndo Flex consistently exhibited the lowest centering ability across all levels. In the buccolingual plane, although differences were not statistically significant, Jizai showed improved centering at 6 mm and 9 mm, and ProTaper Next at 3 mm. Regarding canal transportation, Jizai files maintained the canal anatomy most effectively across all levels. At 3 mm in the buccolingual direction, Jizai showed the highest transportation (P = 0.025), while both ProTaper Next and NeoEndo Flex showed negative values, indicating canal straightening. Overall, Jizai showed the best shaping ability, followed by ProTaper Next and then NeoEndo Flex.

Conclusion: Jizai rotary files demonstrated the highest centering ability and the least canal transportation, indicating better preservation of canal anatomy. ProTaper Next also showed promising results, whereas NeoEndo Flex was less effective. CBCT proved to be an accurate and reliable tool for assessing canal shaping outcomes.

Keywords: Endodontic Treatment; NiTi Rotary System; Canal transportation; Centering ability; ProTaper Next; Jizai; NeoEndo Flex; Cone Beam Computed Tomography

References

1. Plotino G., et al. “New Technologies to Improve Root Canal Disinfection”. Brazilian Dental Journal 1 (2016): 3-8.
2. Metzger Z., et al. “The role of mechanical instrumentation in the cleaning of root canals”. Endodontic Topics1 (2013): 87-109.
3. Buchanan LS. “The standardized-taper root canal preparation--Part 1. Concepts for variably tapered shaping instruments”. International Endodontic Journal 6 (2000): 516-529.
4. FS Weine., et al. “The effect of preparation procedures on original canal shape and on apical foramen shape”. Journal of Endodontics8 (1975): 255-262.
5. Bürklein S and Schäfer E. “Critical evaluation of root canal transportation by instrumentation”. Endodontic Topics1 (2013): 110-124.
6. Estrela C., et al. “Common Operative Procedural Errors and Clinical Factors Associated with Root Canal Treatment”. Brazilian Dental Journal 2 (2017): 179-190.
7. Massimo Del Fabbro., et al. “In Vivo and In Vitro Effectiveness of Rotary Nickel-Titanium vs Manual Stainless Steel Instruments for Root Canal Therapy: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis”. Journal of Evidence Based Dental Practice1 (2018): 59-69.
8. Grande NM., et al. “A review of the latest developments in rotary NiTi technology and root canal preparation”. Australian Dental Journal 1 (2023): S24-38.
9. Versiani MA., et al. “Anatomical complexities affecting root canal preparation: a narrative review”. Australian Dental Journal 1 (2023): S5-23.
10. Stern S., et al. “Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (μCT)”. International Endodontic Journal 6 (2012): 514-523.
11. Kaur K., et al. “Exploring Technological Progress in Three-Dimensional Imaging for Root Canal Treatments: A Systematic Review”. International Dental Journal 2 (2025): 1097-1112.
12. MK Wu., et al. “Prevalence and extent of long oval canals in the apical third”. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology, and Endodontology 6 (2000): 739-743.
13. Elemam RF., et al. “In Vitro Research Methods Used to Evaluate Shaping Ability of Rotary Endodontic Files-A Literature Review”. Dentistry Journal10 (2024): 334.
14. Omar N., et al. “A comparative finite analysis of the mechanical behavior of ProTaper NEXT and WaveOne rotary files”. Bulletin of the National Research Centre1 (2019): 1-6.
15. Chhabra A., et al. “Life span of Neoendo Flex and ProTaper Next rotary files with reciprocating motion in single-rooted teeth”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 4 (2023): 420-423.
16. Matsumoto K., et al. “Three-dimensional Analysis of the Shaping Characteristics and Ability of a Novel Ni-Ti Rotary File”. ODEP1 (2023): 137-143.
17. de Albuquerque MS., et al. “Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Dentin Removal after Instrumentation: A Micro-CT Evaluation”. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 7 (2019): 806-811.
18. Nathani TI., et al. “Canal Transportation and Centering Ability in Long Oval Canals: A Multidimentional Analysis”. The Journal of Endodontics10 (2019): 1242-1247.
19. Liu W and Wu B. “Root Canal Surface Strain and Canal Center Transportation Induced by 3 Different Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instrument Systems”. The Journal of Endodontics 2 (2016): 299-303.
20. Saberi N., et al. “Comparison of centring ability and transportation between four nickel titanium instrumentation techniques by micro-computed tomography”. International Endodontic Journal 6 (2017): 595-603.
21. Moukhtar TM., et al. “Centering ability and canal transportation of curved root canals after using different nickel-titanium preparation systems”. Tanta Dental Journal1 (2018): 19.
22. Issac E. “A Comparative Study to Evaluate the Accuracy of CBCT, Digital Radiography and Intra Oral Periapical Radiography for the Assessment of the Anatomy of the Maxillary Second Premolar Root Canals : An In vitro Study (2016).
23. Grande NM., et al. “Micro-computerized tomographic analysis of radicular and canal morphology of premolars with long oval canals”. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathology Oral Radiology and Endodontology 3 (2008): e70-76.
24. Cleghorn BM., et al. “The root and root canal morphology of the human mandibular first premolar: a literature review”. The Journal of Endodontics 5 (2007): 509-516.
25. Cleghorn BM., et al. “The root and root canal morphology of the human mandibular second premolar: a literature review”. The Journal of Endodontics 9 (2007): 1031-1037.
26. van der Vyver PJ., et al. “Root Canal Shaping Using Nickel Titanium, M-Wire, and Gold Wire: A Micro-computed Tomographic Comparative Study of One Shape, ProTaper Next, and Wave One Gold Instruments in Maxillary First Molars”. The Journal of Endodontics 1 (2019): 62-67.
27. Fernández-Pazos G., et al. “Fracture and deformation of ProTaper Next instruments after clinical use”. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Dentistry 11 (2018): e1091-1095.
28. Nakatsukasa T., et al. “Comparative evaluation of mechanical properties and shaping performance of heat-treated nickel titanium rotary instruments used in the single-length technique”. Dental Materials Journal 3 (2021): 743-749.
29. Priyanka B., et al. “CBCT Comparison of the Remaining Dentin Thickness Following Biomechanical Teeth Preparation using Edge Endo X7, Hero Gold, and Neo Endo Flex Rotary File Systems: An In-vitro Study”. EBSCOhost4 (2024): 47.
30. Razumova S., et al. “Evaluation of Cross-Sectional Root Canal Shape and Presentation of New Classification of Its Changes Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Scanning”. Applied Sciences 13 (2020): 4495.
31. Martins JNR and Versiani MA. “CBCT and Micro-CT on the Study of Root Canal Anatomy”. The Root Canal Anatomy in Permanent Dentition (2019): 89-180.
32. Ahangar FA., et al. “Evaluation of Centering Ability of Four Thermally Treated Nickel Titanium Rotary Files For Root Canal Preparation In Moderately Curved Root Canals: An In vitro Cone Beam Computed Tomography Assessment (2018).
33. Singla MG., et al. “A comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and volumetric increase in the curved canals using thermally treated three nickel-titanium rotary files: A cone-beam computed tomography study”. Endodontology2 (2021): 75.
34. Troiano G., et al. “Centering Ability of ProTaper Next and WaveOne Classic in J-Shape Simulated Root Canals”. Scientific World Journal (2016): 1606013.
35. Pansheriya E., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Apical Transportation and Canal Centric Ability in Apical Region of Newer nickel-titanium File Systems Using cone-beam computed tomography on Extracted Molars: An Study”. Contemporary Clinical Dentistry 2 (2018): S215-220.
36. Sinha Y., et al. “Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Root Canals Prepared Using a New Rotary Nickel-Titanium File System: An in Vitro Study”. JCHR2 (2024): 50-55.
37. Khandeparkar ANS., et al. “A cone-beam computed tomographic analysis of total dentin removed, canal transportation, and canal-centering ability following instrumentation with three different file systems: An study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics 5 (2023): 574-578.
38. Manocha SK., et al. “Comparative evaluation of canal transportation and canal centering ability in oval canals with newer nickel-titanium rotary single file systems - A cone-beam computed tomography study”. Journal of Conservative Dentistry 3 (2023): 326-333.

Citation

Citation: Malaika Varma., et al. “Comparative Evaluation of Canal Transportation and Centering Ability of Three Different File Systems using Cone Beam Computed Tomography: An In Vitro Study".Acta Scientific Dental Sciences 9.10 (2025): 45-54.

Copyright

Copyright: © 2025 Rucha Harde., et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.