• Users Online: 43
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 

 Table of Contents  
Year : 2022  |  Volume : 34  |  Issue : 1  |  Page : 55-60

Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of sequential rotary, single rotary, and single reciprocating file systems in simulated curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study

Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Rajah Muthiah Dental College and Hospital, Annamalai University, Chidambaram, Tamil Nadu, India

Date of Submission10-Jul-2021
Date of Decision07-Sep-2021
Date of Acceptance27-Oct-2021
Date of Web Publication25-Mar-2022

Correspondence Address:
Dr. P Senthamil Selvan
No. 8/20, Senthamilagam, Kesari Nagar Main Road, Adambakkam, Chennai - 600 088, Tamil Nadu
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None

DOI: 10.4103/endo.endo_87_21

Rights and Permissions

Aim: The purpose of the study was to evaluate and compare canal transportation (CT) and centering ability (CA) between sequential rotary, single rotary, and single reciprocating file systems using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) in simulated curved canals.
Materials and Methods: Thirty curved root canals simulated in clear resin blocks were divided randomly into three groups – Group I – ProTaper Gold–PTG (Sequential continuous rotation), Group II – One Curve-OC (Single-file continuous rotation), and Group III – WaveOne GOLD-WOGs (Single-file reciprocating motion) Ten samples of each group were positioned in a custom-made dental stone holder and subjected to CBCT scanning with 5 samples at a time at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm from the apical end before and after instrumentation. The canals were subjected to instrumentation using the files according to the group allotted. The files were used as recommended by the manufacturer and subjected to CBCT scanning. The values of CT and CA were obtained using the formula given by Gambill et al., and statistical analysis was performed.
Results: The results showed that within the groups, all groups showed higher mean values of CT and lower CA in apical level followed by middle and coronal level, respectively, and between the groups, the least CT and highest CA exhibited in WOG followed by OC and PTG, respectively.
Conclusion: The least CT and highest CA exhibited in WOG (Single-file reciprocation system) followed by OC (Single-file continuous rotation) and PTG (Sequential file system with continuous rotation), respectively.

Keywords: Canal transportation, centering ability, cone beam computed tomography, one curve, ProTaper gold, reciprocating, simulated canals, single rotary, WaveOne GOLD

How to cite this article:
Selvan P S, Aparajitha R V, Ahamed A S, Bhavani S, Rajaraman G. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of sequential rotary, single rotary, and single reciprocating file systems in simulated curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. Endodontology 2022;34:55-60

How to cite this URL:
Selvan P S, Aparajitha R V, Ahamed A S, Bhavani S, Rajaraman G. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of sequential rotary, single rotary, and single reciprocating file systems in simulated curved canals using cone-beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. Endodontology [serial online] 2022 [cited 2022 May 23];34:55-60. Available from: https://www.endodontologyonweb.org/text.asp?2022/34/1/55/340840

  Introduction Top

Shaping and cleaning comprise the most important phase in root canal treatment. Schilder's principles for canal preparation mainly insisted on preserving the apical foramen with the narrowest cross-sectional diameter and not altering the original canal curvature.[1]

However, iatrogenic errors such as ledges, zips, perforations, and root canal transportation (CT) can occur during preparation, especially in curved canals.[2]

CT is the removal of canal wall structure on the outside curve in the apical half of the canal due to the tendency of files to restore themselves to their original linear shape during canal preparation.[3] Centering ability (CA) is the ability of an instrument to remain centered in the canal, thus preserving the canal anatomy.[4]

Persistently, newer instruments with proprietary thermomechanical processes have been developed to avoid or reduce the drawback such as the unexpected fracture of the traditional NiTi files.[5]

To overcome these disadvantages, various thermomechanical procedures and the improvement of composition of the alloy are introduced, which improve the flexibility of NiTi files and, in turn, would minimize the intracanal irregularities.

With the introduction of novel technologies such as gold treatment, ProTaper Gold (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) continuous rotation sequential file system was introduced. PTG files have a convex triangular cross-section, progressive taper and consist of three shaping files – Sx, S1, and S2 – and three finishing files – F1, F2, and F3.[6]

The newest innovations are reciprocating systems and single-file systems. A recent innovation is a reciprocating motion where the stress on the instrument is relieved by reciprocating movement which could reduce the risk of cyclic fatigue caused by tension and compression. Further the single file systems have gained wide popularity with their advantages like shorter working time, reduction in number of instruments required to obtain desired canal shaping and reduced instrument fatigue compared to sequential rotary system.

WaveOne GOLD (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) is a reciprocal single-file system, made from GOLD alloy technology and available as 20/07, 25/07, 35/06, and 45/05. They have a fixed taper from D1-D3, yet a progressively decreasing percentage tapered design from D4-D16 and semi-active tip and a unique, unequal bidirectional reciprocation movement.[7]

The most recently introduced file, One Curve (Micro Mega, Besancon, France), was manufactured from C Wire. It is a continuous rotary single-file system with a continuous taper and variable pitch, available as 25/04, 25/06, 35/04, and 45/04.[8]

Among the various methods used for evaluation of shaping ability of endodontic instruments, CBCT has been widely and also in this study as it is noninvasive and reproducible three-dimensional evaluation of the morphology of the tooth.[9],[10]

The purpose of this in vitro study was to evaluate and compare the CT and CA between ProTaper Gold, One Curve, and WaveOne Gold in the preparation of curved simulated root canals using CBCT imaging. The null hypothesis tested was that the different file systems used in the curved canals would not differ in the degree of CT and CA.

  Materials and Methods Top

Sample selection

Thirty curved simulated root canals in clear resin blocks (Endo Training Blocks ISO 15, Dentsply Maillefer), with 60° angle of curvature, 10 mm radius of curvature, 2% taper, and 17 mm length, were randomly divided into three groups according to the instruments used, namely GROUP I: ProTaper Gold, GROUP II: One Curve, and GROUP III: WaveOne Gold.

Sample preparation

For all groups, a stainless steel 10 and 15 K-file (Dentsply Maillefer) scouted the canal up to the working length (WL) until it is visible at the apical exit and WL was established 0.5 mm short of this length, creating an initial and standardized glide path. The simulated resin blocks were positioned in a custom-made dental stone holder with five resin blocks per mold and scanned before and after instrumentation.

Root canal preparation

A single operator with experience in rotary and reciprocating motions executed all instrumentation procedures and instruments were discarded after single use. Apical patency was confirmed between each step using a size 10 K-file just beyond the WL. The glycerine was used as a lubricant and 1.0 mL sterile water was used as an irrigant using a 30-G side-vented needle (Max-i-Probe, Dentsply Rinn, Elgin, IL, USA) placed to a depth just short of binding. The flutes of the used instruments were cleaned using gauze soaked in 0.9% Normal saline after three in and out movements. All the groups were instrumented using Gear reduction handpiece or Endodontic motor (X-smart TM plus, Dentsply Tulsa Dental, Tulsa, OK).

Group I

The canals were instrumented to the WL with PTG instrument with a length of 25 mm, at 300 rpm with a torque of 150–520 gcm as recommended by the manufacturer as follows: SX file (1/2 of the WL), followed by S1 file, S2 file, F1, and finally F2 files.

Group II

Canals were prepared with one curve file system with size #25 and taper of 0.06 at continuous rotation speed 300 rpm and torque 2.5 N.cm with direct downward pecking movement until the WL.

Group III

Canals were prepared with the Primary reciprocating WaveOne Gold file with size #25 and taper of 0.07, in the WaveOne GOLD mode by the endo motor in brushing action at 350 rpm with a gentle inward “stroking” motion minimum apical pressure.

After final irrigation with 1.0 mL sterile water, the samples were positioned for post instrumentation scan.

Cone-beam computed tomography scan specifications

All the groups were scanned before and after instrumentation using cone-beam computed tomography (NewTom go 3D CBCT Machine). The CBCT scans were done using the protocol supplied by the CBCT scanner, at 84Kvp, 5.0 mA, 90 mm Voxel, Exposure time 20 s, 1-mm-thick axial sections, 32 cm display field of view, and beam incidence at the central portion on the device used to fix the specimens aligned perpendicularly to the beam.

Cone-beam computed tomography measurements

CBCT images were subjected for the measurement using NNT viewer software and were calculated at three cross-section levels, namely Level I (apical) – 3 mm, Level II (middle) – 5 mm, and Level III (coronal) – 7 mm representing distance from the apical end using the equation as defined by Gambill et al.[9]

For CT – (a1 - a2) - (b1– b2)

For CA – (a1 - a2) / (b1– b2)

Where, a1 will be the shortest distance from the mesial edge of the root to the mesial edge of the un instrumented canal, b1 will be the shortest distance from distal edge of the root to the distal edge of the uninstrumented canal, a2 will be the shortest distance from the mesial edge of the root to the mesial edge of the instrumented canal, and b2 will be the shortest distance from the distal edge of the instrumented canal to distal edge of the root.

For CT – A result other than 0 indicates that transportation has occurred in the canal, a negative value indicates transportation toward the distal portion, a positive value denotes transportation toward the mesial portion, and null denotes the absence of transportation.

For canal CA – If these numbers were not equal, then the lower figure was considered to be the numerator of the ratio. A result of 1 indicated the optimal CA and closer the result to zero, the worse the ability of the instrument to keep itself in canal central axis. The values attained were subjected to statistical analysis.

Statistical analysis

The mean values of the CT and CA recorded for all the groups were analyzed using IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows Version 19 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). The values between groups were analyzed using one way analysis of variance (ANOVA), and multiple intergroup comparisons were analyzed using the Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) (post hoc) test. The confidence interval was set at 95%, and the P value was set for 0.05.

  Results Top

[Table 1]a and [Table 1]b show the mean, standard deviation values, and one-way ANOVA and multiple intergroup comparisons (Tukey Post hoc test) of the CT and CA of groups at three levels. Among the groups, at Level I, Group III (WOG) showed a significantly lower mean transportation value compared to Group II and Group I (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in CT values between Group I (PTG) and Group II (OC) (P = 0.867). Among the groups at Level II, Group III (WOG) showed the least mean transportation value (P = 0.01 and P = 0.001, respectively). However, there was no significant difference in CT values between Group III (WOG) and Group II (OC) (P = 0.867). At Level III, there was no significant difference in CT among any of the groups (P > 0.05).

Click here to view

Among the groups, at Level I, WOG Group showed a significantly higher mean CA compared to PTG Group and OC Group (P = 0.028). However, there was no significant difference in CA values between PTG Group and OC Group (P = 0.991). At Level II, WOG Group showed significantly higher mean CA compared to other groups (P = 0.001) and there was no significant difference between PTG Group and OC Group (P = 0.217). At Level III, there was no significant difference in CA among any of the groups (P > 0.763).

  Discussion Top

On comparing between the three groups, the least CT and the highest CA resulted in WaveOne Gold–Single-file reciprocation system followed by One Curve – Single-file continuous rotation and followed by ProTaper Gold – Sequential file continuous rotation. Thus, the null hypothesis is rejected. Moreover, for all the groups, higher mean values of CT and lowest mean values of CA were in the apical level followed by the middle and coronal level.

On evaluating the cross-sectional images, the direction of transportation showed a greater tendency toward the outer curvature of the root canal with a higher tendency in curved parts of the canal in the apical and middle thirds for all three groups.

Although several methods are used for assessment of shaping ability of files such as reassembly technique, radiographic comparisons, scanning electron microscope, serial sectioning technique, photographic assessment, computer manipulation, and silicone impressions of canals, the main limitation was they are two-dimensional, not accurate, invasive, and leading to loss of specimen.[9]

In the present study, the CBCT tool was used to evaluate as it is noninvasive, feasibility to evaluate the anatomic structure of the root canal before and after instrumentation, and the quality of the three-dimensional images acquired by this method is superior to other techniques.[11],[12]

The use of resin blocks and extracted natural teeth are the most common methods available for the evaluation of CT. Ideally, it should be studied using human teeth, but the standardization of teeth in terms of apical patency and the angle of curvature is difficult, whereas in simulated canals in resin blocks, the root canal diameter, length, taper, and angle of curvature are easily standardized and serve as an ideal experimental model for the analysis of the endodontic preparation technique. However, the microhardness of dentine could not be standardized.[13]

According to Buchanan,[14] the amount of CT increases with apical preparation greater than size 25. Hence, the apical preparation was standardized to size 25 in the present study.

In this study, the ProTaper Gold (Sequential continuous rotation) showed higher mean values of CT and lower CA. The results obtained were similar to studies by Singla et al.,[15] who reported ProTaper Gold to show higher mean values of CT and lower CA. Furthermore, similar results were reported by Jasim and Sh. Al-Gharrawi[16] and Singh et al.,[17] who reported higher mean transportation by PTG compared to the TwoShape.

This may be attributed to sharp cutting flutes, the larger number of files required, clustering blades stress on the canal wall straightening curvatures, decreased flexibility with tip stiffness associated with the progressive taper, and relative larger tapers of ProTaper system.[18],[19]

Moreover, studies by Ruddle[20] and De-Deus et al.[21] reported better shaping ability and benefits of a single-file system over full sequential file rotary systems as shorter working time, reduction in the number of instruments required to obtain the desired shape reduces cross-contamination and instrument fatigue.

The one curve (single-file continuous rotation) has a marginally higher centering ratio (values were closer to 1 compared to that of PTG) and lower CT compared to ProTaper Gold which may be due to benefits of the single-file system, unique asymmetrical cutting profile, its snake-like movement into the canal, safety tip of size 25, continuous taper of 0.06, and variable pitch which reduces instrument screwing effects.[8]

The results were similar to studies supporting better shaping ability of single-file continuous rotation over sequential file systems.[22],[23]

WaveOne Gold (Single-file reciprocation system) has shown the highest mean value CA and least CT compared to other groups. These results are similar to Singla et al.,[15] and Dhingra et al.[24] but contrary to Mamede-Neto[25] who reported ProTaper Gold files to have no significant differences among the different instruments evaluated.

Hence, it is valid to state that Single-file systems (WaveOne Gold and One Curve) have better shaping ability compared to the sequential file system (ProTaper Gold).

On the comparison between WaveOne Gold and One Curve, WaveOne Gold has shown higher centering ratio and lesser CT with a significant difference in apical level.

Jellil[26] and Vallabhaneni et al.[27] reported single-file reciprocation (WOG) to have file respected original canal anatomy than single-file continuous rotation files. However, the results were not similar to Kolhe et al.,[28] who have reported OC to have less CT and better CA compared to WOG.

The performance of WaveOne Gold may probably be attributed to its reciprocating motion. The instruments when used in reciprocating motion enable more centered instrumentation and maintains original canal contour better than that when used in continuous rotating motion, especially in the apical third as aggressive continuous rotating motion tends to remove the dentine toward the outer wall of the canal.[27],[29] The WOG engages and cuts in a 150° counterclockwise direction and then disengages with 30° in a clockwise direction to prevent taper lock. The net file movement is a 120° cutting cycle.

They have a fixed taper from D1-D3, yet a progressively decreasing percentage tapered design from D4-D16. Furthermore, it has semi-active and modified guiding tip to reduce the mass of the center and aid its penetration into any canal with a reproducible glide path. They have a parallelogram cross-section that offers two 85° cutting edges in contact with the canal wall, a patented off-centered design with only one cutting edge in contact with the canal wall, and a constant helical angle of 24° that ensures little or no screwing effect. Moreover, they are manufactured from advanced proprietary thermal process called gold process that yields super-elastic NiTi file having 2 stage A-R-M transformation.[7]

Nevertheless, Wu et al.[30] have quantified 0.3 mm as the critical CT value and beyond this value, leakage was found to occur more frequently. However, none of the files have exceeded this value.

The limitations in the present study could be the differences in the taper, the metallurgy of the files compared, and the microhardness of the resin model. Hence, to validate the outcomes of the present study, complex clinical studies evaluating different aspects of the files need to be done.

  Conclusion Top

Within the limitations, it can be concluded that

  1. All the systems showed the highest CT at apical level and least CT at coronal level
  2. WOG exhibited least transportation and most centered preparation
  3. PTG (Sequential file system) exhibited highest CT and least centering compared to WOG or OC (Single-file systems)
  4. Among the Single-file systems, WOG and OC, WOG (reciprocation motion) produced the least transportation and more CA compared to OC (continuous rotation motion).

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

  References Top

Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269-96.  Back to cited text no. 1
Schäfer E, Dammaschke T. Development and sequelae of canal transportation. Endod Top 2006;15:75-90.  Back to cited text no. 2
Eleazer P, Glickman G, McClanahan S. AAE Glossary of Endodontic Terms. New York: American Association of Endodontists; 2020.  Back to cited text no. 3
Kandaswamy D, Venkateshbabu N, Porkodi I, Pradeep G. Canal-centering ability: An endodontic challenge. J Conserv Dent 2009;12:3-9.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Zhou H, Peng B, Zheng YF. An overview of the mechanical properties of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. Endod Top 2013;29:42-54.  Back to cited text no. 5
Dentsply Tulsa. The ProTaper Gold Brochure; 2014. Available from: http://www.tulsadentalspecialties.com/Libraries/Tab_Content__Endo_ Access_Shaping/Brochure_for_ProTaper_Gold.sflb.ashx. [Last accessed on 2015 Aug 14].  Back to cited text no. 6
Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single-file reciprocating system. Int Dent Afr Ed 2016;6:6-17.  Back to cited text no. 7
Micro-Mega. The One Curve Brochure. Available from: http://micro-mega.com/wpcontent/uploads/2018/03/Brochure-One-Curve-EN-1.pdf. [Last accessed on 2018 Jan 04].  Back to cited text no. 8
Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod 1996;22:369-75.  Back to cited text no. 9
Stern S, Patel S, Foschi F, Sherriff M, Mannocci F. Changes in centring and shaping ability using three nickel-titanium instrumentation techniques analysed by micro-computed tomography (μCT). Int Endod J 2012;45:514-523.  Back to cited text no. 10
Scarfe WC, Levin MD, Gane D, Farman AG. Use of cone beam computed tomography in endodontics. Int J Dent 2009;2009:634567.  Back to cited text no. 11
Patel S, Brown J, Pimentel T, Kelly RD, Abella F, Durack C. Cone beam computed tomography in endodontics – A review of the literature. Int Endod J 2019;52:1138-52.  Back to cited text no. 12
Hülsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: Shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top 2005;10:30-76.  Back to cited text no. 13
Buchanan LS. Management of the curved root canal: Predictably treating the most common endodontic complexity. J Calif Dent Assoc 1989;17:40-5.  Back to cited text no. 14
Singla MG, Kumar H, Singh N. 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. Endodontology 2021;33:75-80.  Back to cited text no. 15
  [Full text]  
Jasim AA. Sh. Al-Gharrawi HA. Evaluation of the canal transportation and centering ratio at different levels of simulated curved canals prepared by oneshape, protaper next, protaper gold and twoshape nickel titanium rotary files. Int J Med Res Health Sci 2019;8:91-7.  Back to cited text no. 16
Singh S, Gupta T, Pandey V, Singhania H, Pandey P, Gangavane S. Shaping ability of Two-shape and ProTaper gold files by using cone-beam computed tomography. J Contemp Dent Pract 2019;20:330-4.  Back to cited text no. 17
Giuliani V, Di Nasso L, Pace R, Pagavino G. Shaping ability of waveone primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system used in continuous and reciprocating motion. J Endod 2014;40:1468-71.  Back to cited text no. 18
Zanette F, Grazziotin-Soares R, Flores ME, Camargo Fontanella VR, Gavini G, Barletta FB. Apical root canal transportation and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Universal with and without PathFile. J Endod 2014;40:688-93.  Back to cited text no. 19
Ruddle CJ. Canal preparation: Single-file shaping technique. Dent Today 2012;31:124, 126-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
De-Deus G, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J 2010;43:1063-8.  Back to cited text no. 21
Tambe VH, Nagmode PS, Abraham S, Patait M, Lahoti PV, Jaju N. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of rotary Protaper, One Shape system and wave One system using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent 2014;17:561-5.  Back to cited text no. 22
  [Full text]  
Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative analysis of canal centering ability of different single file systems using cone beam computed tomography – An in-vitro study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:C06-10.  Back to cited text no. 23
Dhingra A, Ruhal N, Miglani A. Evaluation of single file systems reciproc, oneshape, and waveone using cone beam computed tomography – An In vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res 2015;9:C30-4.  Back to cited text no. 24
Mamede-Neto I, Borges AH, Guedes OA, de Oliveira D, Pedro FL, Estrela C. Root canal transportation and centering ability of nickel-titanium rotary instruments in mandibular premolars assessed using cone-beam computed tomography. Open Dent J 2017;11:71-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
Jellil EI. Evaluation of canal transportation using single file rotary systems, one shape, waveone GOLD and reciproc in simulated curved canals (in vitro study). Tikrit J Dent Sci 2017;5:121-5.  Back to cited text no. 26
Vallabhaneni S, Fatima K, Kumar TH. Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of root canal transportation using WaveOne gold and neoniti single-file systems. J Conserv Dent 2017;20:434-8.  Back to cited text no. 27
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
Kolhe SJ, Kolhe PS, Gulve MN, Aher GB, Bhadage CJ, Mashalkar SS. Microcomputed tomographic evaluation of shaping ability of two thermo mechanically treated single-file systems in severely curved roots. J Conserv Dent 2020;23:244-8.  Back to cited text no. 28
  [Full text]  
Franco V, Fabiani C, Taschieri S, Malentacca A, Bortolin M, Del Fabbro M. Investigation on the shaping ability of nickel-titanium files when used with a reciprocating motion. J Endod 2011;37:1398-401.  Back to cited text no. 29
Wu MK, Fan B, Wesselink PR. Leakage along apical root fillings in curved root canals. Part I: Effects of apical transportation on seal of root fillings. J Endod 2000;26:210-6.  Back to cited text no. 30


  [Table 1]


Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

  In this article
Materials and Me...
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    PDF Downloaded43    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal