Comparative Evaluation of Pericervical Dentin Preservation and Fracture Resistance of Root Canal-Treated Teeth Prepared Using Instrumentation Systems With Different Tapers: An In Vitro Study
- 1Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Pacific Dental College and Research Centre, Udaipur, IND
- 2Department of Oral Medicine and Radiology, Pacific Dental College and Research Centre, Udaipur, IND
Abstract
Background and objective
Pericervical dentin (PCD) preservation is a crucial consideration in modern endodontics, as excessive removal of dentin during root canal preparation could jeopardize the structural strength of endodontically treated teeth. The objective of this in vitro study was to compare PCD preservation and fracture resistance among various instrumentation systems with different tapers in root canal-treated mandibular premolars.
Materials and methods
Forty freshly extracted, intact, single-rooted mandibular first premolars were randomly selected and subdivided into four groups (n = 10). Groups I, II, III, and IV were prepared using stainless steel hand files with a 2% taper, TruNatomy rotary files with a 4% taper (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Gold files up to F2 (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, United States), and HyFlex rotary files with a 6% taper (Coltène/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany), respectively. The pre- and post-instrumentation thickness of the PCD was assessed at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). After instrumentation, the canals were obturated, and the teeth were restored with composite resin. Statistical analysis was carried out using the paired Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's post hoc test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min.
Results
A statistically significant reduction in PCD thickness was observed following instrumentation in all four groups. The mean PCD loss was 0.35 ± 0.10 mm for hand files, 0.23 ± 0.08 mm for TruNatomy, 0.28 ± 0.11 mm for ProTaper Gold, and 0.42 ± 0.09 mm for HyFlex. One-way ANOVA demonstrated a statistically significant difference in PCD reduction among the four instrumentation groups (F(3,36) = 7.50, p = 0.001). Fracture resistance was highest in the ProTaper Gold group (724.91 ± 149.38 N), followed by TruNatomy (706.73 ± 134.52 N), HyFlex (654.68 ± 139.76 N), and hand files (635.42 ± 59.87 N).
Conclusion
All four instrumentation systems produced measurable reductions in PCD thickness following root canal preparation. TruNatomy demonstrated the lowest numerical PCD reduction, whereas HyFlex demonstrated the highest numerical reduction. ProTaper Gold showed the highest numerical fracture resistance, followed by TruNatomy, HyFlex, and hand files. The observed numerical differences should be interpreted according to the final validated statistical analysis rather than as evidence of superiority between instrumentation systems.
Related
- Comparative Evaluation of Three Endodontic File Systems for Pericervical Dentin Preservation and Canal Transportation Using Cone-Beam Computed Tomography: An In Vivo Study
- Comparative Evaluation of Freezing Protocols and Cryopreservation Media for the Preservation of Alginate Encapsulated HepaRG Cells
- Comparative Evaluation of Two Bioceramic-Based Sealers on Root Dentin Strength and Fracture Resistance Under Varying Tooth Conditions: An In Vitro Study.
- Short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes of arthroscopic-assisted uni-portal spinal surgery discectomy with versus without ligamentum flavum preservation: a retrospective comparative cohort study
- Comparative Evaluation of Large Language Model Interfaces in Third Molar Surgery Complication Scenarios: Response Quality, Clinical Content, Potential Clinical Risk, Readability, and Externally Observable Response Latency—A Cross-Sectional Comparative Benchmark Study
BibTeX
@article{joshi2026comparative,
title = {{Comparative Evaluation of Pericervical Dentin Preservation and Fracture Resistance of Root Canal-Treated Teeth Prepared Using Instrumentation Systems With Different Tapers: An In Vitro Study}},
author = {Khushbu B Joshi and Jitendra Lohar and Prerna Thareja and Rajvika Sharma and Komal Pareek and Amardeep Tanwar},
journal = {Cureus},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.7759/cureus.117731},
url = {https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.117731},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Comparative Evaluation of Pericervical Dentin Preservation and Fracture Resistance of Root Canal-Treated Teeth Prepared Using Instrumentation Systems With Different Tapers: An In Vitro Study
AU - Khushbu B Joshi
AU - Jitendra Lohar
AU - Prerna Thareja
AU - Rajvika Sharma
AU - Komal Pareek
AU - Amardeep Tanwar
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/10
JO - Cureus
DO - 10.7759/cureus.117731
UR - https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.117731
AB - Background and objective Pericervical dentin (PCD) preservation is a crucial consideration in modern endodontics, as excessive removal of dentin during root canal preparation could jeopardize the structural strength of endodontically treated teeth. The objective of this in vitro study was to compare PCD preservation and fracture resistance among various instrumentation systems with different tapers in root canal-treated mandibular premolars. Materials and methods Forty freshly extracted, intact, single-rooted mandibular first premolars were randomly selected and subdivided into four groups (n = 10). Groups I, II, III, and IV were prepared using stainless steel hand files with a 2% taper, TruNatomy rotary files with a 4% taper (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland), ProTaper Gold files up to F2 (Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, United States), and HyFlex rotary files with a 6% taper (Coltène/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany), respectively. The pre- and post-instrumentation thickness of the PCD was assessed at the cementoenamel junction (CEJ) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). After instrumentation, the canals were obturated, and the teeth were restored with composite resin. Statistical analysis was carried out using the paired Student's t-test, one-way ANOVA, and Tukey's post hoc test, with statistical significance set at p < 0.05. Fracture resistance was assessed using a universal testing machine at a crosshead speed of 1 mm/min. Results A statistically significant reduction in PCD thickness was observed following instrumentation in all four groups. The mean PCD loss was 0.35 ± 0.10 mm for hand files, 0.23 ± 0.08 mm for TruNatomy, 0.28 ± 0.11 mm for ProTaper Gold, and 0.42 ± 0.09 mm for HyFlex. One-way ANOVA demonstrated a statistically significant difference in PCD reduction among the four instrumentation groups (F(3,36) = 7.50, p = 0.001). Fracture resistance was highest in the ProTaper Gold group (724.91 ± 149.38 N), followed by TruNatomy (706.73 ± 134.52 N), HyFlex (654.68 ± 139.76 N), and hand files (635.42 ± 59.87 N). Conclusion All four instrumentation systems produced measurable reductions in PCD thickness following root canal preparation. TruNatomy demonstrated the lowest numerical PCD reduction, whereas HyFlex demonstrated the highest numerical reduction. ProTaper Gold showed the highest numerical fracture resistance, followed by TruNatomy, HyFlex, and hand files. The observed numerical differences should be interpreted according to the final validated statistical analysis rather than as evidence of superiority between instrumentation systems.
SN - 2168-8184
ER -