{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.029667149059334298, 'fraction_numerical': 0.005065123010130246, 'mean_word_length': 5.092511013215859, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
To evaluate and compare canal transportation, canal-centering ability, and vertical root fracture resistance of teeth prepared with three different rotary file systems: An in vitro study

Aim: The aim of the study was to determine the file system with best canal-centering ability (CA) and least canal transportation (CT) and which provides maximum resistance to vertical root fracture (VRF). Materials and Methods: Forty mesiobuccal roots of extracted maxillary molars were randomly divided into three experimental groups and one control group, with ten samples in each group. Group 1 samples were prepared with ProTaper file system, Group 2 samples were prepared with WaveOne single-file system, Group 3 samples were prepared with self-adjusting file (SAF) system, and Group 4 had no instrumentation. Pre- and post-instrumentation cone-beam computed tomography scans were done. CT and CA were evaluated at 3 mm, 6 mm, and 9 mm. Samples were subjected to load under Instron universal testing machine to determine VRF resistance. Data were analyzed using statistical analysis. Results: There was no statistical significance for CT, CA, and VRF resistance at all the three levels among the three groups; however, SAF system showed least CT and was more centered. Conclusion: SAFs produce less CT and more centered preparation compared to ProTaper file system and WaveOne file system.