• Restorative Dentistry and Endodontics
• /
• v.30 no.6
• /
• pp.486-492
• /
• 2005

The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping ability of the two different Ni-Ti file systems and the two different engine systems in simulated canals. A total of four groups of each 10 were tested. Each group was instrumented with HeroShaper and Endo-Mate2 (Croup HE), HeroShaper and Tecnika (Croup HT), ProFile and Endo-Mate2 (Group PE), and ProFile and Tecnika (Croup PT). Canal preparation time was recorded. The images of pre- and post- instrumented root canals were scanned and superimposed. The amounts of increased width and centering ratio were measured and calculated at apical 1, 3 and 5mm levels. These data were statistically analyzed with one-way ANOVA and Duncan's multiple range test The results of this study were as fellows ; 1. Canal preparation time of HT group was the shortest (p<0.05). 2. The amount of increased canal width in HE group was significantly larger than PT group at apical 1mm level (p<0.05) At apical 3mm level, PT group was significantly smaller than other groups (p<0.05). At apical 5mm level, PE group was significantly larger than PT group (p<0.05). 3. The amount of centering ratio in HE group was significantly larger than other groups (p<0.05). At apical 5mm level, HT group was significantly larger than PE group and PT group (p<0.05). Under the condition of this study, torque-controlled endodontic motor is safer than no torque controlled motor, especially when the active file is used.