Shaping ability of BlueShaper, TruNatomy, DC Taper and HyFlex EDM in long oval canals: An ex vivo study.

AIM: This study evaluated and compared the shaping ability of four rotary instrument systems in long-oval root canals using microcomputed tomographic (micro-CT) evaluation. Currently, there is no data available on the canal shaping abilities of BlueShaper and DC Taper instruments. METHODOLOGY: Sixty-four single-rooted mandibular premolars were matched based on similar root canal morphologic features as determined by (micro-CT) and randomly assigned to 1 of 4 experimental groups (n = 16) according to the instrument system used: BlueShaper, TruNatomy, DC Taper and HyFlex EDM One File. Changes in the root canal surface and volume, remaining dentine thickness, and number of prepared areas were assessed. RESULTS: No significant differences were found amongst the four instrument systems for the parameters evaluated (p > .05). There was a significant reduction in the number of unprepared areas and the remaining dentine thickness after each increase in size of the instruments tested (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The four instrument systems perform similarly in long oval root canals. Although none could prepare all canal walls, larger preparations incorporated significantly more surfaces in the final shape.

Influence of brushing motions on the shaping of oval canals by rotary and reciprocating instruments.

OBJECTIVE: The effects of brushing on shaping with three different instruments were assessed in oval canals. DESIGN: Mandibular incisors were assigned to 6 groups (n = 12/group) according to the system, each one with or without brushing: Reciproc Blue, VDW.Rotate, and Race EVO. Micro-computed tomography was performed before and after preparation. RESULTS: Brushing strokes caused no increase in canal volume, surface area, and structure model index independently of the system (p > 0.05), except for RaCe EVO in the full canal surface area (p < 0.05). Brushing did not increase the prepared areas (p > 0.05), except for Reciproc in the apical canal (p < 0.05). Reciproc with no brushing exhibited less pericervical dentin than with brushing (p < 0.05), while RaCe EVO with brushing resulted in less remaining dentin (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The brushing motion had no effects on the overall shaping performance of the 3 instruments tested. An exception was the increase in prepared surface area in the apical canal segment when the Reciproc instrument was used with brushing strokes.