Comparing the Centering Ability of Different Pathfinding Systems and Their Effect on Final Instrumentation by Hyflex CM

    loading  Checking for direct PDF access through Ovid



Recently, different rotary glide path systems have been introduced. The aim of this study was to compare the centering ability of different rotary pathfinding systems and their effect on the final preparation by Hyflex CM files.


Sixty endodontic training blocks with J-shaped canals were divided into 3 groups according to the pathfinding system used. Instrumentation was done with G-File + Hyflex CM (G-File group), PathFile + Hyflex CM (PathFile group), and Hyflex GPF + Hyflex CM (GPF group). Three images were taken: initial, after glide path preparation, and after final instrumentation. Pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation images were superimposed, and centering ratio along the J-shaped canal was measured to evaluate the occurrence of deviation. Statistical analysis of the data was performed by using one-way analysis of variance, followed by Tukey test (α = 0.05).


The ability of instruments to remain centered in canals at 0-mm level (apex) was significantly lower in PathFile group (P < .05). No significant difference was found at other levels. After final preparation by Hyflex CM no significant difference was found at any level.


The centering abilities of Hyflex GPF and G-Files are better than that of PathFile at apex, but it has no significant effect on final preparation by Hyflex CM.

Related Topics

    loading  Loading Related Articles