{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02875399361022364, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0134185303514377, 'mean_word_length': 5.340080971659919, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 1, '<?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}}
Cone-beam computed tomography assessment of root canal transportation and evaluation of remaining dentin thickness using XP EndoShaper and EndoStar E5

Introduction: The aim of this study was to compare canal transportation and remaining dentin thickness (RDT) of multiple-file system EndoStar E5 and single-file system XP EndoShaper (XPS) using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT). Materials and method: A total of 50 mesiobuccal canals of the maxillary first molars with curvatures of 15°°–30°° were chosen and randomly divided into two experimental groups (n = 25). Canals were shaped with XPS in Group 1 and with EndoStar E5 in Group 2. According to the manufacturer's instructions, canal preparation was made. Canals were scanned before and after instrumentation using CBCT scanner to evaluate the root canal transportation at 3, 5, and 7 mm from the apex. Data were statistically analyzed, and significance level was set at P < 0.05. Results: Intergroup comparison mesiodistally showed that there was no significant canal transporation among both groups. Intergroup comparison buccolingually showed that there was statistically significant canal transporation at five millimeters when instrumented with XPS than EndoStar E5. With respect to RDT, intergroup comparison showed that mesially, distally, lingually, and bucally, there was no significant difference in the RDT. Conclusion: The present study indicates safety in the preparation of root canals with XPS as well as EndoStar E5. Both the files maintained original canal curvature while preserving RDT.