Evaluation and comparison of transportation and centering ability of various pathfiles in the second mesiobuccal canal of maxillary first molars

Abstract

Introduction: In root canal treatment, the glide path process is considered a primary action to increase the safety and efficiency of nickel–titanium rotary files and prevent preparation errors. The present study aimed to evaluate and compare different glide paths in terms of transportation and centering ability of the curved, narrow second mesiobuccal (MB2) canal of maxillary first molars using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and Methods: First, periapical radiographs and CBCT were obtained from extracted maxillary first molars, and 125 teeth, whose mesiobuccal root curve was in the medium range (a curve angle of 20°–40°) and had separate MB2 canal, were selected. However, teeth <17 mm and more than 21 mm in length were excluded from the study. Afterward, the access cavity was prepared with a round diamond bur, and the MB2 canal was negotiated using a manual size 6–8 C-pilot. In the next stage, were randomly divided to five groups of 25, and each group was prepared by using one of the files of ProGlider, R-Pilot, Hyflex EDM, WaveOne Gold Glider, and C-Pilot. Following that, CBCT was taken from all teeth again, and the levels of canal transportation and centering ability were evaluated at five levels (distances of furcation, 1 and 2 mm from the furcation, the crest of the curvature, and 1 mm from the apex). Results: In this study, there was no statistically significant difference in canal transportation and centering ability among five PathFile systems in all sections (P > 0.05). Conclusions: All five PathFile systems carry out Glide path preparation similarly and appropriately in terms of canal transportation and centering ability.