# Comparative Analysis of Rotary Systems in Curved Root Canals: Evaluation of Wear, Transportation, and Centering Capacity

**Authors:** Siri Paulo, Pedro Zagalo, Beatriz Louro, Ricardo Jorge Teixo, José Pedro Martinho, Tiago Nóbrega, Anabela Paula, Carlos Miguel Marto, Diogo Fonseca, Manuel Marques Ferreira

PMC · DOI: 10.3390/dj14020092 · 2026-02-05

## TL;DR

This study compares four rotary file systems in curved root canals, evaluating their wear, transportation, and centering ability to determine which performs best.

## Contribution

The study provides a comparative analysis of four modern rotary systems in curved canals, focusing on wear, transportation, and centering.

## Key findings

- TruNatomy showed the lowest wear and transportation, preserving canal anatomy better.
- Race Evo and ProTaper Ultimate demonstrated superior centering ability.
- Race Evo had higher wear but still respected the original canal anatomy.

## Abstract

Background/Objectives: Root canal instrumentation has a crucial role in the success of endodontic treatment. However, management of curved root canals remains a challenge. This study aimed to compare the performance of four rotatory file systems, ProTaper Next, TruNatomy, ProTaper Ultimate and Race Evo, in terms of wear, transportation and centering capacity, in curved root canals. Methods: A total of 150 human tooth roots were selected, divided based on the degree of curvature, and then distributed into four experimental groups according to the rotary system used. Cone beam computed tomography images were obtained before and after instrumentation, and values were measured with ImageJ software. Results: Regarding root canal wear, the TruNatomy system displayed the lowest wear values, and the Race Evo system showed a tendency for greater wear. For transportation, TruNatomy and Race Evo had the lowest transportation, indicating a higher respect for the root canal’s original anatomy. For centering ability, Race Evo and ProTaper Ultimate displayed values closer to perfect centering compared to other systems. Conclusions: Overall, TruNatomy was confirmed as a more conservative system, Race Evo with a tendency for greater wear even though with a higher respect for root canal original anatomy. Race Evo and ProTaper Ultimate showed better centering ability.

## Linked entities

- **Species:** Homo sapiens (taxon 9606)

## Full-text entities

- **Genes:** CLEC3B (C-type lectin domain family 3 member B) [NCBI Gene 7123] {aka MCDR4, TN, TNA}
- **Diseases:** Root canal wear (MESH:D057085), fatigue (MESH:D005221), root resorptions (MESH:D012391), root fracture (MESH:D011843), calcifications (MESH:D002114), fractures (MESH:D050723), injury to (MESH:D014947), necrotic (MESH:D009336), TN (MESH:D015619), infected (MESH:D007239), PTN (MESH:D014202)
- **Chemicals:** silicone (MESH:D012828), EDTA (MESH:D004492), NiTi (MESH:C013616), NiTi alloy (MESH:C040654), NaOCl (MESH:D012973), PTN (-)
- **Species:** Homo sapiens (human, species) [taxon 9606]

## Figures

8 figures with captions in the complete paper: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12939689/full.md

---
Source: https://tomesphere.com/paper/PMC12939689