Comparison of transportation and centering ability using RECIPROC and iRace: A cone-beam computed tomography study

Document Type: Original Article(s)


1 Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics, Tehran Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

2 Associate Professor, Cranio-Maxillo-Facial Research Center AND Department of Endodontics, Tehran Dental Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, School of Dentistry, Shahed University, Tehran, Iran

4 Private Practice, Tehran, Iran

5 Professor, Endodontology Research Center AND Neuroscience Research Center, Kerman University of Medical Sciences, Kerman, Iran


BACKGROUND AND AIM: Root canal treatment, especially in curved and constricted root canals, can be very difficult and time consuming. Several investigations have compared the reciprocating and full sequence motions in terms of shaping ability. The purpose of the present study was to compare the root canal transportation and centering ability of RECIPROC and iRace using cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT).METHODS: Thirty-two mesiobuccal (MB) root canals of maxillary first molars with curvature ranged 25-40 degrees were selected. Pre-instrumentation CBCT images were captured at 2, 4 and 6 mm distances from the root apex. Thirty samples were randomly divided into two groups (n = 15). After root canal preparation using either iRace or RECIPROC #25, post-instrumentation CBCT images were obtained at the same levels. Two specimens served as control group. Pre- and post-CBCT images were evaluated to measure root canal transportation and centering ability. Mann-Whitney and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis.RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups (P > 0.05).CONCLUSION: iRace and RECIPROC maintained original root canal geometry and may be safe to be used in curved root canals.


  1. Yoshimine Y, Ono M, Akamine A. The shaping effects of three nickel-titanium rotary instruments in simulated S-shaped canals. J Endod 2005; 31(5): 373-5.
  2. Ozer SY. Comparison of root canal transportation induced by three rotary systems with noncutting tips using computed tomography. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 111(2): 244-50.
  3. 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; 36(5): 904-7.
  4. Nabavizadeh M, Abbaszadegan A, Khojastepour L, Amirhosseini M, Kiani E. A Comparison of apical transportation in severely curved canals induced by Reciproc and BioRaCe systems. Iran Endod J 2014; 9(2): 117-22.
  5. Schafer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2004; 37(4): 239-48.
  6. Guelzow A, Stamm O, Martus P, Kielbassa AM. Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation. Int Endod J 2005; 38(10): 743-52.
  7. Pasternak-Júnior B, Sousa-Neto MD, Silva RG. Canal transportation and centring ability of RaCe rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2009; 42(6): 499-506.
  8. Al-Gharrawi H, Fadhil MA. A comparative study to evaluate canal transportation and centering ratio at different levels of simulated curved canals prepared by iRaCe, ProTaper NEXT and ProTaper universal files. J Am Sci 2016; 12(10): 103-15.
  9. You SY, Kim HC, Bae KS, Baek SH, Kum KY, Lee W. Shaping ability of reciprocating motion in curved root canals: a comparative study with micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2011; 37(9): 1296-300.
  10. Yoo YS, Cho YB. A comparison of the shaping ability of reciprocating NiTi instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2012; 37(4): 220-7.
  11. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012; 45(5): 449-61.
  12. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Canal shaping with WaveOne Primary reciprocating files and ProTaper system: a comparative study. J Endod 2012; 38(4): 505-9.
  13. Goldberg M, Dahan S, Machtou P. Centering ability and influence of experience when using WaveOne Single-File technique in simulated canals. Int J Dent 2012; 2012: 206321.
  14. Lim YJ, Park SJ, Kim HC, Min KS. Comparison of the centering ability of Wave.One and Reciproc nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved canals. Restor Dent Endod 2013; 38(1): 21-5.
  15. Generali L, Righi E, Todesca MV, Consolo U. Canal shaping with WaveOne reciprocating files: influence of operator experience on instrument breakage and canal preparation time. Odontology 2014; 102(2): 217-22.
  16. Burklein S, Benten S, Schafer E. Shaping ability of different single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2013; 46(6): 590-7.
  17. Munoz E, Forner L, Llena C. Influence of operator's experience on root canal shaping ability with a rotary nickel-titanium single-file reciprocating motion system. J Endod 2014; 40(4): 547-50.
  18. Hartmann MS, Barletta FB, Camargo Fontanella VR, Vanni JR. Canal transportation after root canal instrumentation: a comparative study with computed tomography. J Endod 2007; 33(8): 962-5.
  19. Hartmann MS, Fontanella VR, Vanni JR, Fornari VJ, Barletta FB. CT evaluation of apical canal transportation associated with stainless steel hand files, oscillatory technique and pro taper rotary system. Braz Dent J 2011; 22(4): 288-93.
  20. Wenzel A, Haiter-Neto F, Frydenberg M, Kirkevang LL. Variable-resolution cone-beam computerized tomography with enhancement filtration compared with intraoral photostimulable phosphor radiography in detection of transverse root fractures in an in vitro model. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2009; 108(6): 939-45.
  21. Moazzami F, Khojastepour L, Nabavizadeh M, Seied HM. Cone-Beam computed tomography assessment of root canal transportation by Neoniti and Reciproc Single-File systems. Iran Endod J 2016; 11(2): 96-100.
  22. Prabhakar AR, Yavagal C, Dixit K, Naik SV. Reciprocating vs rotary instrumentation in pediatric endodontics: Cone beam computed tomographic analysis of deciduous root canals using two single-file systems. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2016; 9(1): 45-9.
  23. Navos BV, Hoppe CB, Mestieri LB, Bottcher DE, So MV, Grecca FS. Centering and transportation: in vitro evaluation of continuous and reciprocating systems in curved root canals. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19(5): 478-81.
  24. Prasanthi NN, Rambabu T, Sajjan GS, Varma KM, Satish RK, Padmaja M. A comparative evaluation of the increase in root canal surface area and canal transportation in curved root canals by three rotary systems: A cone-beam computed tomographic study. J Conserv Dent 2016; 19(5): 434-9.
  25. Siqueira JF, Jr., Alves FR, Versiani MA, Rocas IN, Almeida BM, Neves MA, et al. Correlative bacteriologic and micro-computed tomographic analysis of mandibular molar mesial canals prepared by self-adjusting file, reciproc, and twisted file systems. J Endod 2013; 39(8): 1044-50.
  26. Versiani MA, Leoni GB, Steier L, De-Deus G, Tassani S, Pecora JD, et al. Micro-computed tomography study of oval-shaped canals prepared with the self-adjusting file, Reciproc, WaveOne, and ProTaper universal systems. J Endod 2013; 39(8): 1060-6.
  27. Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2013; 39(8): 1067-70.
  28. Saber SE, Nagy MM, Schafer E. Comparative evaluation of the shaping ability of ProTaper Next, iRaCe and Hyflex CM rotary NiTi files in severely curved root canals. Int Endod J 2015; 48(2): 131-6.
  29. Yared G. Canal preparation with only one reciprocating instrument without prior hand filing: A new concept [Online]. [cited 2011]; Available from: URl:
  30. Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, Alovisi M, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012; 38(1): 101-4.
  31. Yared G. Canal preparation of the MB2 canal with the R25 RECIPROC® instrument without prior hand filing or glide path [Online]. [cited 2013]; Available from: URL:
  32. Deka A, Bhuyan AC, Bhuyan D. A comparative evaluation of root canal area increase using three different nickel-titanium rotary systems: An ex vivo cone-beam computed tomographic analysis. Contemp Clin Dent 2015; 6(1): 79-83.
  33. Hiran-us S, Pimkhaokham S, Sawasdichai J, Ebihara A, Suda H. Shaping ability of ProTaper NEXT, ProTaper Universal and iRace files in simulated S-shaped canals. Aust Endod J 2016; 42(1): 32-6.
  34. 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; 19(5): 440-4.