• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.1
• /
• pp.58-65
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the three $ProTaper^{(R)}$ instrumentation techniques in simulated canals. Thirty resin blocks were divided into 3 groups with 10 canals each. Each group was instrumented with manual $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (Group M), rotary $ProTaper^{(R)}$ (Group R), and hybrid technique (Group H). Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post-instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of canal deviation, total canal width, inner canal width, outer canal width and centering ratio were measured at apical 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 mm levels 1. Canal preparation time was the shortest in R group (p < 0.05). 2. The amounts of total canal width in R group was generally larger than the other groups, but no significant differences were observed except at the 1, 3 mm levels (p > 0.05) .3. The amounts of inner canal width in R group was larger than M group at the 1 mm level and H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05). The amounts of outer canal width in R group was larger than H group only at the 1 mm level (p < 0.05). 4. The direction of canal deviation in H, R group at the 1, 2, 3 mm levels was outward and that in M group at the 1, 2 mm levels was inward. The amounts of canal deviation in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05). 5. The amounts of centering ratio in H group was larger than R group at the 6 mm level (p < 0.05).