Comparison of ProTaper Gold, Edge Taper Platinum, and V-Taper Gold Rotary Systems Regarding Transportation, Centering Ability, Remaining Dentin Thickness at the Danger Zone, and Surface Changes
Abstract
Objectives: The purpose of this study was to compare ProTaper Gold, Edge Taper Platinum, and V-Taper Gold regarding transportation, centering ability, remaining dentin thickness at the danger zone, and surface changes.
Materials and Methods: Sixty extracted human mandibular and maxillary first molars were used in this in vitro study. Pre-instrumentation cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT) scanning of all teeth was performed; canal curvatures were calculated, and the samples were randomly allocated into three groups for root canal instrumentation with ProTaper Gold, Edge Taper Platinum, and V-Taper Gold. Post-instrumentation scans were obtained, and the two scans were compared to determine canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness. Surface changes were assessed with scanning electron microscopy (SEM) in the three groups. Data were analyzed using the Shapiro-Wilk test, Kruskal-Wallis test, and one-way ANOVA, as appropriate. The significance level was set at 0.05.
Results: No significant difference was found among the three groups regarding canal transportation (P>0.05), centering ability (P>0.05), or the amount of removed dentin (P>0.05). The mean remaining dentin thickness was more than the acceptable minimum in all three groups. In quality assessment of the files, no fracture, opening, or overlapping of the flutes was seen.
Conclusion: Based on the findings of the present study, the Edge Taper Platinum and V-Taper Gold rotary systems prepared the mesiobuccal canals of first molars similar to the ProTaper Gold system.
1. al-Omari MA, Dummer PM, Newcombe RG, Doller R. Comparison of six files to prepare simulated root canals. 2. Int Endod J. 1992 Mar;25(2):67-81.
2. Nagy CD, Bartha K, Bernáth M, Verdes E, Szabó J. The effect of root canal morphology on canal shape following instrumentation using different techniques. Int Endod J. 1997 Mar;30(2):133-40.
3. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schönenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int Endod J. 2003 Feb;36(2):93-9.
4. Stewart JT, Lafkowitz S, Appelbaum K, Hartwell G. Distortion and breakage of Liberator, EndoSequence, and ProFile systems in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod. 2010 Apr;36(4):729-31.
5. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004 Aug;30(8):559-67.
6. Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile rotary instruments after prolonged clinical use. Int Endod J. 2001 Jul;34(5):386-9.
7. Park SY, Cheung GS, Yum J, Hur B, Park JK, Kim HC. Dynamic torsional resistance of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010 Jul;36(7):1200-4.
8. Wycoff RC, Berzins DW. An in vitro comparison of torsional stress properties of three different rotary nickel-titanium files with a similar cross-sectional design. J Endod. 2012 Aug;38(8):1118-20.
9. Gambarini G, Grande NM, Plotino G, Somma F, Garala M, De Luca M, et al. Fatigue resistance of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium instruments produced by new manufacturing methods. J Endod. 2008 Aug;34(8):1003-5.
10. Shen Y, Winestock E, Cheung GS, Haapasalo M. Defects in nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. Part 4: an electropolished instrument. J Endod. 2009 Feb;35(2):197-201.
11. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino VA, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2004 Dec;37(12):832-9.
12. Paqué F, Ganahl D, Peters OA. Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2009 Jul;35(7):1056-9.
13. Zanette F, Grazziotin-Soares R, Flores ME, Camargo Fontanella VR, Gavini G, Barletta FB. Apical root canal transportation and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Universal with and without PathFile. J Endod. 2014 May;40(5):688-93.
14. Alcalde M, Duarte MAH, Amoroso Silva PA, Souza Calefi PH, Silva E, Duque J, Vivan R. Mechanical Properties of ProTaper Gold, EdgeTaper Platinum, Flex Gold and Pro-T Rotary Systems. Eur Endod J. 2020 Dec;5(3):205-211.
15. Shanghai Fanta Dental Materials Co., Ltd. V-Taper Gold. Shanghai: Fanta Dental. Available at: https://www.fanta-dental.com/products/v-taper-gold.html. Accessed 2026 Jun 17.
16. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5.
17. Jain A, Asrani H, Singhal AC, Bhatia TK, Sharma V, Jaiswal P. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between WaveOne and ProTaper rotary by using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(5):440-4.
18. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996 Jul;22(7):369-75.
19. Kour S, Chaudhury T, Pradeep PR. Comparative Evaluation of Changes in Surface Topography of ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold NiTi Files After Root Canal Preparation in Curved Canal of Molar Teeth: An Optical Profilometery Study. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences. 2019;3(10):20-25.
20. Jungmann CL, Uchin RA, Bucher JF. Effect of instrumentation on the shape of the root canal. J Endod. 1975 Feb;1(2):66-9.
21. Dowker SE, Davis GR, Elliott JC. X-ray microtomography: nondestructive three-dimensional imaging for in vitro endodontic studies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997 Apr;83(4):510-6.
22. Mokhtari H, Niknami M, Sohrabi A, Habibivand E, Mokhtari Zonouzi HR, Rahimi S, et al. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Comparison of Canal Transportation after Preparation with BioRaCe and Mtwo Rotary Instruments and Hand K-Flexofiles. Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):180-4. Epub 2014 Jul 5.
23. Nazari Moghadam K, Shahab S, Rostami G. Canal transportation and centering ability of twisted file and reciproc: a cone-beam computed tomography assessment. Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):174-9. Epub 2014 Jul 5.
24. Naghavi N, Mortazavi S, Peighoun M. Evaluation of Root Canal Morphology of Maxillary Single Root Premolars with Two Canals using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in an Iranian Population. J Dent Mater Tech. 2022;11(1):28-36.
25. Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod. 2010 May;36(5):904-7.
26. Madani ZS, Goudarzipor D, Haddadi A, Saeidi A, Bijani A. A CBCT Assessment of Apical Transportation in Root Canals Prepared with Hand K-Flexofile and K3 Rotary Instruments. Iran Endod J. 2015 Winter;10(1):44-8. Epub 2014 Dec 24.
27. Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative Analysis of Canal Centering Ability of Different Single File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 May;9(5):ZC06-10.
28. Sarraf P, Kiomarsi N, Taheri FH, Moghaddamzade B, Dibaji F, Kharazifard MJ. Apical Transportation of Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars Following Root Canal Preparation with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment. Front Dent. 2019 Jul-Aug;16(4):272-278.
29. Lim SS, Stock CJ. The risk of perforation in the curved canal: anticurvature filing compared with the stepback technique. Int Endod J. 1987 Jan;20(1):33-9.
30. Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jan;17(1):35-9.
31. Maitin N, Arunagiri D, Brave D, Maitin SN, Kaushik S, Roy S. An ex vivo comparative analysis on shaping ability of four NiTi rotary endodontic instruments using spiral computed tomography. J Conserv Dent. 2013 May;16(3):219-23.
32. Garala M, Kuttler S, Hardigan P, Steiner-Carmi R, Dorn S. A comparison of the minimum canal wall thickness remaining following preparation using two nickel-titanium rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2003 Sep;36(9):636-42.
33. Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Svec TA, Powers JM, Mitchell JC. Scanning electron microscope observations of new and used nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod. 2003 Oct;29(10):667-9.
34. Kuhn G, Tavernier B, Jordan L. Influence of structure on nickel-titanium endodontic instruments failure. J Endod. 2001 Aug;27(8):516-20.
35. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997 Feb;23(2):77-85.
36. Parashos P, Gordon I, Messer HH. Factors influencing defects of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use. J Endod. 2004 Oct;30(10):722-5.
37. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod. 2003 Jan;29(1):15-9.
38. Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod. 2006 Jan;32(1):61-5.
39. Gharechahi M, Bagherpour A, Behzadi S, Gharechahi MM, Peighoun M. Evaluation and comparison of transportation and centering ability of various pathfiles in the second mesiobuccal canal of maxillary first molars. Saudi Endodontic Journal. 2023 Jan 1;13(1):80-7.
2. Nagy CD, Bartha K, Bernáth M, Verdes E, Szabó J. The effect of root canal morphology on canal shape following instrumentation using different techniques. Int Endod J. 1997 Mar;30(2):133-40.
3. Peters OA, Peters CI, Schönenberger K, Barbakow F. ProTaper rotary root canal preparation: assessment of torque and force in relation to canal anatomy. Int Endod J. 2003 Feb;36(2):93-9.
4. Stewart JT, Lafkowitz S, Appelbaum K, Hartwell G. Distortion and breakage of Liberator, EndoSequence, and ProFile systems in severely curved roots of molars. J Endod. 2010 Apr;36(4):729-31.
5. Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: a review. J Endod. 2004 Aug;30(8):559-67.
6. Gambarini G. Cyclic fatigue of ProFile rotary instruments after prolonged clinical use. Int Endod J. 2001 Jul;34(5):386-9.
7. Park SY, Cheung GS, Yum J, Hur B, Park JK, Kim HC. Dynamic torsional resistance of nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod. 2010 Jul;36(7):1200-4.
8. Wycoff RC, Berzins DW. An in vitro comparison of torsional stress properties of three different rotary nickel-titanium files with a similar cross-sectional design. J Endod. 2012 Aug;38(8):1118-20.
9. Gambarini G, Grande NM, Plotino G, Somma F, Garala M, De Luca M, et al. Fatigue resistance of engine-driven rotary nickel-titanium instruments produced by new manufacturing methods. J Endod. 2008 Aug;34(8):1003-5.
10. Shen Y, Winestock E, Cheung GS, Haapasalo M. Defects in nickel-titanium instruments after clinical use. Part 4: an electropolished instrument. J Endod. 2009 Feb;35(2):197-201.
11. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino VA, et al. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2004 Dec;37(12):832-9.
12. Paqué F, Ganahl D, Peters OA. Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2009 Jul;35(7):1056-9.
13. Zanette F, Grazziotin-Soares R, Flores ME, Camargo Fontanella VR, Gavini G, Barletta FB. Apical root canal transportation and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper Universal with and without PathFile. J Endod. 2014 May;40(5):688-93.
14. Alcalde M, Duarte MAH, Amoroso Silva PA, Souza Calefi PH, Silva E, Duque J, Vivan R. Mechanical Properties of ProTaper Gold, EdgeTaper Platinum, Flex Gold and Pro-T Rotary Systems. Eur Endod J. 2020 Dec;5(3):205-211.
15. Shanghai Fanta Dental Materials Co., Ltd. V-Taper Gold. Shanghai: Fanta Dental. Available at: https://www.fanta-dental.com/products/v-taper-gold.html. Accessed 2026 Jun 17.
16. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol. 1971 Aug;32(2):271-5.
17. Jain A, Asrani H, Singhal AC, Bhatia TK, Sharma V, Jaiswal P. Comparative evaluation of canal transportation, centering ability, and remaining dentin thickness between WaveOne and ProTaper rotary by using cone beam computed tomography: An in vitro study. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Sep-Oct;19(5):440-4.
18. Gambill JM, Alder M, del Rio CE. Comparison of nickel-titanium and stainless steel hand-file instrumentation using computed tomography. J Endod. 1996 Jul;22(7):369-75.
19. Kour S, Chaudhury T, Pradeep PR. Comparative Evaluation of Changes in Surface Topography of ProTaper Universal and ProTaper Gold NiTi Files After Root Canal Preparation in Curved Canal of Molar Teeth: An Optical Profilometery Study. Acta Scientific Dental Sciences. 2019;3(10):20-25.
20. Jungmann CL, Uchin RA, Bucher JF. Effect of instrumentation on the shape of the root canal. J Endod. 1975 Feb;1(2):66-9.
21. Dowker SE, Davis GR, Elliott JC. X-ray microtomography: nondestructive three-dimensional imaging for in vitro endodontic studies. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 1997 Apr;83(4):510-6.
22. Mokhtari H, Niknami M, Sohrabi A, Habibivand E, Mokhtari Zonouzi HR, Rahimi S, et al. Cone-Beam Computed Tomography Comparison of Canal Transportation after Preparation with BioRaCe and Mtwo Rotary Instruments and Hand K-Flexofiles. Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):180-4. Epub 2014 Jul 5.
23. Nazari Moghadam K, Shahab S, Rostami G. Canal transportation and centering ability of twisted file and reciproc: a cone-beam computed tomography assessment. Iran Endod J. 2014 Summer;9(3):174-9. Epub 2014 Jul 5.
24. Naghavi N, Mortazavi S, Peighoun M. Evaluation of Root Canal Morphology of Maxillary Single Root Premolars with Two Canals using Cone Beam Computed Tomography in an Iranian Population. J Dent Mater Tech. 2022;11(1):28-36.
25. Gergi R, Rjeily JA, Sader J, Naaman A. Comparison of canal transportation and centering ability of twisted files, Pathfile-ProTaper system, and stainless steel hand K-files by using computed tomography. J Endod. 2010 May;36(5):904-7.
26. Madani ZS, Goudarzipor D, Haddadi A, Saeidi A, Bijani A. A CBCT Assessment of Apical Transportation in Root Canals Prepared with Hand K-Flexofile and K3 Rotary Instruments. Iran Endod J. 2015 Winter;10(1):44-8. Epub 2014 Dec 24.
27. Agarwal RS, Agarwal J, Jain P, Chandra A. Comparative Analysis of Canal Centering Ability of Different Single File Systems Using Cone Beam Computed Tomography- An In-Vitro Study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015 May;9(5):ZC06-10.
28. Sarraf P, Kiomarsi N, Taheri FH, Moghaddamzade B, Dibaji F, Kharazifard MJ. Apical Transportation of Mesiobuccal Canals of Maxillary Molars Following Root Canal Preparation with Two Rotary Systems and Hand Files: A Cone-Beam Computed Tomographic Assessment. Front Dent. 2019 Jul-Aug;16(4):272-278.
29. Lim SS, Stock CJ. The risk of perforation in the curved canal: anticurvature filing compared with the stepback technique. Int Endod J. 1987 Jan;20(1):33-9.
30. Arora A, Taneja S, Kumar M. Comparative evaluation of shaping ability of different rotary NiTi instruments in curved canals using CBCT. J Conserv Dent. 2014 Jan;17(1):35-9.
31. Maitin N, Arunagiri D, Brave D, Maitin SN, Kaushik S, Roy S. An ex vivo comparative analysis on shaping ability of four NiTi rotary endodontic instruments using spiral computed tomography. J Conserv Dent. 2013 May;16(3):219-23.
32. Garala M, Kuttler S, Hardigan P, Steiner-Carmi R, Dorn S. A comparison of the minimum canal wall thickness remaining following preparation using two nickel-titanium rotary systems. Int Endod J. 2003 Sep;36(9):636-42.
33. Alapati SB, Brantley WA, Svec TA, Powers JM, Mitchell JC. Scanning electron microscope observations of new and used nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod. 2003 Oct;29(10):667-9.
34. Kuhn G, Tavernier B, Jordan L. Influence of structure on nickel-titanium endodontic instruments failure. J Endod. 2001 Aug;27(8):516-20.
35. Pruett JP, Clement DJ, Carnes DL Jr. Cyclic fatigue testing of nickel-titanium endodontic instruments. J Endod. 1997 Feb;23(2):77-85.
36. Parashos P, Gordon I, Messer HH. Factors influencing defects of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic instruments after clinical use. J Endod. 2004 Oct;30(10):722-5.
37. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Gaviglio I, Ibba A. Comparative analysis of torsional and bending stresses in two mathematical models of nickel-titanium rotary instruments: ProTaper versus ProFile. J Endod. 2003 Jan;29(1):15-9.
38. Shen Y, Cheung GS, Bian Z, Peng B. Comparison of defects in ProFile and ProTaper systems after clinical use. J Endod. 2006 Jan;32(1):61-5.
39. Gharechahi M, Bagherpour A, Behzadi S, Gharechahi MM, Peighoun M. Evaluation and comparison of transportation and centering ability of various pathfiles in the second mesiobuccal canal of maxillary first molars. Saudi Endodontic Journal. 2023 Jan 1;13(1):80-7.
| Issue | Vol 23 (Continuously Published Article-Based) | |
| Section | Original Article | |
| Keywords | ||
| Root Canal Preparation Dental Instruments Dentin Molar Dental Pulp Cavity | ||
| Rights and permissions | |
|
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
How to Cite
1.
Rouhani A, Naghavi N, Khorasani M, Peighoun M. Comparison of ProTaper Gold, Edge Taper Platinum, and V-Taper Gold Rotary Systems Regarding Transportation, Centering Ability, Remaining Dentin Thickness at the Danger Zone, and Surface Changes. Front Dent. 2026;23.
