|| Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid
The purpose of this study was to compare the shaping properties of TRUShape and Reciproc systems during preparation of oval-shaped canals from contralateral teeth by using micro–computed tomography scanning.Thirteen pairs of freshly extracted contralateral mandibular premolars with a single oval-shaped canal were selected and divided into 2 groups according to the root canal instrumentation technique, TRUShape and Reciproc. The final apical size of instrumentation was 40/.06 for both systems. Data were statistically analyzed for the increase in canal volume and surface area and the amount of unprepared areas promoted by the 2 systems.Preparation with both systems significantly increased the volume and area of the canals (P < .001), with no significant differences between them (P > .05). When the full canal length was evaluated, the amount of uninstrumented areas was significantly larger for Reciproc (30%) than TRUShape (24%) (P < .05). However, analysis restricted to the apical 4-mm segment revealed no statistically significant difference in untouched areas (25% for Reciproc and 20% for TRUShape) (P > .05).Both instrument systems behaved similarly in promoting the increase of root canal volume and surface area. When the full canal length was evaluated, TRUShape instruments showed less unprepared areas than Reciproc. However, this difference did not occur for the apical part of the root canal. None of the techniques could completely prepare oval-shaped root canals.The shaping ability of TRUShape and Reciproc was evaluated in canals of contralateral teeth.Both systems induced a similar increase in canal volume and surface area.TRUShape resulted in less unprepared areas than Reciproc in the full canal length.There were no significant differences in the amount of unprepared areas in the apical canal.