Orturk, Burcin AricanAtes, Ayfer AtavFisekcioglu, Erdogan2024-05-252024-05-2520200099-23991878-355410.1016/j.joen.2019.11.0142-s2.0-85077304123https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.11.014https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14517/1409Arican, Burcin/0000-0001-5757-0571Introduction: The aim of this study was to evaluate and compare the shaping abilities of the XPS (XP-endo Shaper) and PTN (ProTaper Next) systems by using cone-beam computed tomography on apical, middle, and coronal thirds of the pre-created large canals with different apical sizes. Methods: Seventy-two teeth with single canal were divided into 3 groups, and then large root canals were created with apical diameter #30 (Group 1), #35 (Group 2), or #40 (Group 3) by using hand files. Each group was again divided into 2 experimental groups, and root canals were instrumented with either XPS or PTN. Canals were scanned before and after instrumentation by using cone-beam computed tomography scanner to evaluate mesiodistal transportation, buccolingual transportation, centering ratio, percent increased prepared area (PA) (mm(2)), and percent increased prepared outline (PO) (mm) at 2, 5, and 8 mm from the apex. Data were statistically analyzed, and the significance level was set at P < .05. Results: There were no statistically significant differences in PA, PO, and centering ratio values between instruments in size 30 and size 35. The mean increases in PA and PO (P < .021) were statistically higher with XPS in size 40. PTN had statistically higher buccolingual transportation in size 30 and size 35. XPS had lower mesiodistal transportation values in all 3 apical sizes. Conclusions: PTN system is able to remove the dentin even in cases of increased apical diameter. However, XPS has less canal transportation and better centering ability compared with PTN.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessCentering ratiocone-beam computed tomographylarge root canalsProTaper NexttransportationXP-endo shaperArticleQ1Q1463437443WOS:0005196644000163191100419