Comparison of Canal Transportation, Separation Rate, and Preparation Time between One Shape and Neoniti (Neolix): An In Vitro CBCT Study

Maryam Kuzekanani; Faranak Sadeghi; Nima Hatami; Maryam Rad; Mansoureh Darijani; Laurence James Walsh

doi:10.1155/2021/6457071

Comparison of Canal Transportation, Separation Rate, and Preparation Time between One Shape and Neoniti (Neolix): An In Vitro CBCT Study

Int J Dent. 2021 Sep 7:2021:6457071. doi: 10.1155/2021/6457071. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Maryam Kuzekanani¹, Faranak Sadeghi², Nima Hatami¹, Maryam Rad³, Mansoureh Darijani⁴, Laurence James Walsh⁵

Affiliations

¹ Endodontology Research Center, Department of Endodontics, Kerman Dental School, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
² Student Research Committee, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences & Health Services, Kerman, Iran.
³ Oral and Dental Diseases Research Center and Kerman Social Determinants on Oral Health Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran.
⁴ Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Kerman University of Medical Sciences & Health Services, Kerman, Iran.
⁵ UQ Oral Health Centre, The University of Queensland School of Dentistry, 288 Herston Road, Herston 4006, Australia.

Abstract

Purpose: This in vitro study compared root canal preparation in curved mesiobuccal canals of molar teeth using either the One Shape™ or the Neoniti (Neolix) rotary NiTi single-file systems, assessing canal transportation, instrument separation and time required for preparation. Methods. Extracted maxillary and mandibular human molar teeth with mesiobuccal canals having apical angles of curvature between 25 and 35^o were selected and embedded in acrylic resin blocks, and an initial CBCT was taken. The teeth were divided into two equal groups (n = 20), and the canals were cleaned and shaped using either Neoniti™ or One Shape™ engine-driven NiTi rotary files. Each individual instrument was used to prepare 5 canals. The time required for the preparation of each canal was recorded. Postpreparation CBCT scans were taken and used to determine the extent of canal transportation at levels of 2, 4, 6, and 8 mm from the apex. The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for normality was applied, and then, datasets were compared using independent t-tests, with a threshold of P < 0.05.

Results: Neoniti rotary files caused significantly less canal transportation of the curved canals (P=0.0001). On the other hand, the time required for canal preparation was significantly shorter for One Shape (P=0.0001). No instrument separation was recorded in both groups.

Conclusion: Based on these results, the Neoniti™ rotary file system is preferred because it maintains the original shape of curved root canals better than One Shape™; even though this benefit comes at the cost of an increase in preparation time in clinical practice, the better technical performance may be more important than a difference in procedural time.