Ex vivo study compares apical transportation and centering ability of TruNatomy, EDMax, and Reciproc Blue in curved mesiobuccal canals, highlighting key differences.
This study compared apical transportation and centering ability of TruNatomy, EDMax, and Reciproc Blue in curved mesiobuccal canals of mandibular molars. This ex vivo study was conducted on curved (20-40 degrees) mesiobuccal canals of 60 mandibular molars. The teeth were randomly assigned to 4 groups (n=15) for instrumentation of the mesiobuccal canals with (I) TruNatomy, (II) EDMax, (III) Reciproc Blue, and (IV) Reciproc Blue+R-Pilot. Cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scans were obtained before and after instrumentation. Changes in canal wall thickness in mesiodistal (MD) and buccolingual (BL) directions were assessed at 1, 2, 3, and 4 mm from the apex using OnDemand software. Data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis, Bonferroni, Friedman, and Fisher's exact tests (alpha=0.05). TruNatomy showed significantly lower transportation than Reciproc Blue and EDMax in the apical, middle, and coronal thirds (P<0.05). Reciproc Blue and EDMax had no significant difference in transportation (P>0.05). Using the R-Pilot glider had no significant effect on transportation (P>0.05). Canal transportation was not significantly different within each group at four distances from the apex (P>0.05). TruNatomy showed significantly higher centering ability than Reciproc Blue+R-Pilot in the BL dimension at 3 mm from the apex (P<0.05). TruNatomy showed significantly lower canal transportation than Reciproc Blue and EDMax at all distances from the apex. The files had no significant difference in centering ability except at 3 mm in BL dimension, where TruNatomy had significantly higher centering ability than Reciproc Blue+R-Pilot.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Zargar et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: