# Micro‐CT Evaluation of Dentin Preservation by ProTaper Gold and VDW.Rotate in Oval Mandibular Incisors

## TL;DR

This study compares two dental tools for root canal preparation, focusing on how well they preserve dentin in oval-shaped incisors.

## Contribution

The study provides in vitro evidence on dentin preservation differences between ProTaper Gold and VDW.Rotate systems.

## Key findings

- VDW.Rotate caused less dentin removal compared to ProTaper Gold.
- ProTaper Gold increased canal volume and surface area more significantly.
- Both systems had minimal unprepared areas, with VDW.Rotate slightly better.

## Abstract

The success of endodontic treatment depends on the effective chemomechanical preparation of the root canal system, ensuring proper shaping, cleaning, and disinfection. Additionally, preserving pericervical dentin may improve the long‐term prognosis of the tooth. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of two nickel‐titanium rotary systems, ProTaper Gold (PTG) (Dentsply Sirona, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and VDW.Rotate (VDWR) (VDW GmbH, Munich, Germany), in preparing mandibular incisors, focusing on pericervical dentin preservation.

A total of 20 mandibular incisors with oval‐shaped root canals (Vertucci Type I) were selected, disinfected, and scanned by micro‐CT. After randomization, the PTG and VDWR systems were used for canal preparation (n = 10). Preoperative and postoperative images were processed to measure volume, surface area, structure model index, and untouched walls. Irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl and 17% EDTA was standardized. Data were analyzed using the Student t‐test, Welch t‐test, or Mann–Whitney U test, with α = 5%.

Both systems exerted similar effects on proximal wall diameter reduction. The PTG system promoted significantly greater increases in volume (PTG: 5.50%; VDWR: 3.57%) and surface area (PTG: 34.79%; VDWR: 26.93%) compared with that of VDWR (p < 0.05). The percentage of unprepared areas was (PTG: 1.57%; VDWR: 2.33%).

VDWR was associated with reduced dentin removal versus PTG in vitro, but clinical superiority still needs to be proven.