Indian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental ResearchIndian Journal of Dental Research
Indian Journal of Dental Research   Login   |  Users online:

Home Bookmark this page Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font size Increase font size         


ORIGINAL RESEARCH Table of Contents   
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 28  |  Issue : 2  |  Page : 181-186
Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of V-Taper 2H, ProTaper Next, and HyFlex CM in curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro Study

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Nagpur, Maharashtra, India

Correspondence Address:
Pratima Ramakrishna Shenoi
Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, VSPM's Dental College and Research Centre, Hingana Road, Digdoh Hills, Nagpur - 440 019, Maharashtra
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.IJDR_34_16

Rights and Permissions

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(Group1), PN(Group2), and Hyflex CM(Group3). 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 3mm, 6mm, and 9mm 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.

Print this article     Email this article

 Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
  Citation Manager
 Access Statistics
  Reader Comments
  Email Alert *
  Add to My List *

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded250    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 3    

Recommend this journal