Basic Research—Technology
A Comparison of the Canal Centering Ability of ProFile,
K3, and RaCe Nickel Titanium Rotary Systems
Dina Al-Sudani, DDS, MsEdu, and Saad Al-Shahrani, DDS
Abstract
The purpose of this investigation was to compare the
ability of three Nickel Titanium (NiTi) rotary systems
(ProFile, K3, and RaCe) to centralize instrumentation
relative to the original canal location and to determine
the distance of transportation of these canals. Sixty
mesial root canals mandibular molars with curvature
ranging from 15 to 40 degrees were selected. The
canals were divided randomly into three groups of 20
canals each. The roots were sectioned horizontally at
3 mm, 5 mm, and 8 mm from the root apex. Teeth were
reassembled and instrumented according to the man-
ufacturer’s guidelines, with all groups being prepared
to size 30 (0.06) taper master apical file. The cross-
sections were digitally scanned before and after prep-
aration, and image analysis software was used to as-
sess the centering ability and the extent and direction
of transportation. The three groups were statistically
compared with analysis of variance and Tukey’s HSD
test. The results indicated that all three rotary NiTi
systems used in this study were able to preserve dentin
structure. The RaCe system significantly showed most
transportation (p ⬍ 0.05). The ProFile system was
found to be the best for all variables measured in this
study. (J Endod 2006;32:1198 –1201)
Key Words
Canal centering, k3, NiTi, proFile, RaCe
From the Department of Restorative Dental Science,
Endodontic Division, King Saud University, College of
Dentistry, Riyadh, KSA.
Address requests for reprints to Dr. Dina Al-Sudani, Depart-
ment of Restorative Dental Science, Endodontic Division, King
Saud University, College of Dentistry, P.O. Box 60169, Riyadh,
KSA 11545. E-mail address: DrDina_2000@yahoo.com.
0099-2399/$0 - see front matter
Copyright © 2006 by the American Association of
Endodontists.
doi:10.1016/j.joen.2006.07.017
1198 Al-Sudani and Al-Shahrani
C leaning and shaping of the root canal has been recognized as an important phase in
endodontic therapy (1, 2). When curvatures are present, endodontic preparation
becomes more difficult and there is a tendency for all preparation techniques to divert
the prepared canal away from the original axis (3–5). Various preparation techniques
have been proposed to minimize this problem (1– 6). Abou-Rass et al. (4, 5) advocated
the use of an anticurvature filing technique. Moreover, numerous studies have shown
the ability of several new rotary Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) systems to maintain original
canal shape and therefore remain better centered (7–13). RaCe (FKG, La Chaux-de-
Fonds, Switzerland) rotary endodontic instruments have been introduced. Neverthe-
less, the shaping ability of the RaCe was studied using stimulated canal in plastic blocks
or natural canals in extracted teeth. These studies do not directly compare the original
and final shapes of the canals (14, 15). In contrast the split model technique used in this
study enables the direct evaluation of prepared cross sections and the comparison to
their unprepared counterparts (16 –31).
The ProFile (Dentsply, Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) rotary NiTi system is a
three-fluted file of constant taper, with three radial lands, a U shaped cross-section, and
noncutting safety tip. The K3 (SybronEndo, West Collins, CA) rotary NiTi system is a
three-fluted file of constant taper, with a slight positive rake angle in combination with
a so-called radial land relief and asymmetrical cross-sectional design. The name of the
RaCe rotary NiTi system is an acronym for reamers with alternating cutting edges; it is
designed with a nonlanded shank, where one set of cutting edges alternate with a second
set pitched at a different angle, and with a triangular cross cut.
The purpose of this investigation was 2-fold: first, to compare the ability of these
three NiTi rotary systems to center the instrument on the original canal location; second,
to determine the degree of transportation of these canals.
Materials and Methods
In total, 60 mesial canals of 30 human first and second mandibular molars stored
in 10% formalin, were used in this study. Teeth were selected on the basis of mature
apices, similar canal curvature (15– 40 degrees), and separate mesial canals with no
noticeable defects or abnormal root morphology. Caries and residual restoration were
removed from teeth crowns, and then an access cavity was prepared using a #4 high-
speed round carbide bur (Dentsply, Maillefer) with water spray. Occlusal surfaces were
flattened to have a comparable 18-mm length for all teeth and hence a reliable reference
point for instrumentation. Distal roots were amputated and each mesial root was
marked with indelible pencil at 3 mm, 5 mm, and 8 mm from the apical foramen.
The working length established in both canals was 1 mm of the length at which the
10K file was visualized at the apical foramen. Standardized radiographs were taken for
each tooth. All radiographs were digitized, and canal curvature was determined accord-
ing to Schneider’s technique (17) with the Scion program (Scion Corporation, MD).
Teeth were arranged in ascending order of degree of curvature, and a table of random
numbers was used to distribute the 60 canals into three equal groups.
Each access cavity was sealed with a cotton pellet and Cavit-G (3M ESPE, MN), the
apex of each mesial root was sealed with a small ball of utility wax. Each tooth was
placed in a specially designed aluminum mold, which is a modification of the Endodon-
tic Cube described by Kuttler et al. (18). The mold consists of five brass pieces that can
be assembled into a cube by means of 8 hexed screws. Freshly mixed clear polymer
resin (Chemco Resin Craft, Dublin, CA) was poured to the approximate level of the
cemento-enamel junction. The tooth was realigned to ensure that the mesiodistal and
JOE — Volume 32, Number 12, December 2006
 Basic Research—Technology

Figure 1. Photograph showing scanned section (A) before instrumentation, (B) after instrumentation, and (C) superimposed computed image.

buccolingual aspects of the tooth were parallel to the respective sides of Tukey’s HSD test was used post hoc to find the significant differences
the mold. Each mold was given a number according to the tooth placed between experimental groups at ␣ ⫽ 0.05.
therein, and the resin was left to set for 24 hours at room temperature.
Samples from each group were stored individually in plastic boxes. Results
After the resin had cured, the cube was disassembled and each
Table 1 shows the mean centering ratios for the various tech-
resin block was sectioned into four pieces by following the three lines
niques. The lower the value, the better the techniques centered instru-
drawn on the roots using a 0.3 mm diamond wafering blade in an Isomet
mentation around the preinstrumented (control) canal. At the coronal
low-speed saw (Isomet 2000, Buehler, IL). Only the coronal side of the
and mid-root level, the ProFile group showed the lowest centering ratio
middle and coronal sections were scanned using a 3970 scan jet scan-
followed by the K3 group. One-way ANOVA showed that there was a
ner (Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CA) at 2,400 ppi resolution and a scale
significant difference among the three rotary NiTi instruments both
of 600%. Under the same resolution and magnification, a 10-mm length
coronally (p ⫽ 0.008) and at the mid-root level (p ⫽ 0.010). The
graticule (Graticules Ltd., Kent, UK) was scanned for later calibration of
Tukey’s test showed a significant difference at the coronal level between
images and for conversion of pixels to millimeters. The teeth were then
ProFile and RaCe groups (p ⫽ 0.009), and between ProFile and K3
reassembled in the Endodontic Cube and prepared for the instrumentation
groups (p ⫽ 0.039). There was no significant difference between K3
phase. Each group was randomly selected to be instrumented. All rotary NiTi
and RaCe at the coronal level. At mid-root level, a statistically significant
systems were used according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All canals
difference was found between RaCe and ProFile groups (p ⫽ 0.016),
were instrumented to size 30 file of each system.
and between RaCe and K3 groups (p ⫽ 0.032). No significant difference
After instrumentation, the Endodontic Cube was disassembled and
was found between K3 and ProFile groups. There was a trend for the
each section was photographed by the technique described above. Dig-
ProFile to remain better centered at both levels.
ital software SigmaScan (Jandel Scientific, San Rafael, CA), calibrated to
All techniques tended to move the original canal in the same di-
measure distances in millimeters, was used to compare the uninstru-
rection (toward the furcal wall) in relation to the preinstrumentation
mented canal images with the instrumented canal images.
location (control). The RaCe system caused the furthest transportation at
Images of post- and preinstrumented canals were overlaid (Fig. 1)
coronal and mid-root levels 0.41 mm and 0.27 mm, respectively, and the
using Ulead PhotoImpact8 (Ulead Systems Inc., Taipei, Taiwan). The
ProFile group showed the least transportation at both levels 0.32 mm and
mean centering ratio was calculated by the formula X1–X2/Y as
0.21 mm, respectively. One-way ANOVA showed a significant difference
reported by Calhoun and Montgomery (19), where X1 represents the
between the three techniques coronally (p ⬍ 0.001), and at mid-root level
maximum extent of canal movement in one direction, X2 is the move-
(p ⫽ 0.038). Coronally, the Tukey’s test showed a significant difference
ment in the opposite direction, and Y is the diameter of the final canal
between RaCe and ProFile (p ⬍ 0.001), and between ProFile and K3 (p ⫽
preparation (Fig. 2). According to this formula, the centering ratio
0.002). However, no significant difference was found between the RaCe and
approaches zero as X1 and X2 become closer. Zero is an indication of
K3 groups. At the mid-root level, a statistical difference was found between
perfect canal centering and no canal transportation.
RaCe and ProFile groups (p ⫽ 0.03).
The extent of canal transportation X1 was determined by measur-
ing the greatest distance between the periphery of the postinstrumented
canal and the corresponding periphery of the preinstrumented canal Discussion
that was overlaid on it. All values were measured by two evaluators and In the present study, three rotary NiTi systems (ProFile, K3, and
a mean value was taken. The centering ratio and the extent of canal RaCe) were compared on the basis of a cross-sectional assessment of
transportation were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). the root canal shape as proposed by Bramante et al. (16), modified by

JOE — Volume 32, Number 12, December 2006 Centering Ability of NiTi Rotary Systems 1199
Basic Research—Technology

Figure 2. This photograph (left) and drawing (right) represent the centering ratio formula. The shaded area is the preinstrumentation canal shape and the clear area
represents the postinstrumentation canal shape. X1 represents the maximum extent of canal movement in one direction and X2 is the movement in the opposite
direction. Y is the diameter of final canal preparation.

Kuttler et al. (18), and confirmed by many other authors (7, 9, 19 –22). actually work like a shaver on the dentin surface. Whereas an instru-
In the current study, the effects of instrumentation systems on the root ment that has a negative rake angle is less efficient and requires more
were studied at 5 mm and 8 mm from the apex as described by Lim and energy to cut dentin (28 –30). The results of this investigation confirm
Stock (23), and Versumer et al. (24). All three systems used in the the study by Rangel et al. (15) that reported transportation at the be-
present study produced some canal transportation. This finding is con- ginning of the curve to the inner aspect of the 20-degree simulated
sistent with previous results obtained by Weine et al. (3), Lim and canals prepared with RaCe instruments. On the other hand, the results
Webber (6), and Kosa et al. (21). of the present study conflicted with the findings of Gharehgozloo and
The ProFile system produced significantly the least transportation, McDonald (31) and Schafer and Vlassis (14). In the preliminary re-
followed by the K3 system, the RaCe system produced significantly the ports by Gharehgozloo and McDonald (31), K3 showed less deviation
most transportation at both levels. Similar results have been reported by than ProFile; this conflicting result may be because of a difference in the
other investigators (25, 26). This differential performance could be experimental methods. The study by Schafer and Vlassis (14) demon-
attributed to the different designs of these three instruments. The ProFile strated that the canals instrumented by the RaCe system remained better
instrument uses the U-shaped file design with radial land areas, and has centered than those prepared with the ProTaper system. The difference
a neutral or slightly negative rake angle, which was stated by Serene et al. could be attributed to the fact that radiographs and resin blocks were
(27) and Bergmans et al. (13) to cut equally over 360 degrees with a used for the evaluation of root canal instrumentation. The results of
planing action and to be self-centering. The K3 instrument also has a these studies cannot be compared directly with the present investiga-
U-shaped file design with three radial land areas but it differs from tion. However, overall, the findings of the present study confirm the
ProFile in having a positive 45-degree rake angle. Because dentin is a results of other studies that demonstrated the ability of rotary NiTi in-
dense and resilient material, instruments having a positive rake angle strument to stay centered in the canal with minimal risk of transporta-
tion (7–15, 31). Within the parameters of this study, the ProFile system
produced significantly less transportation and remained centered
TABLE 1. Centering ratio of instrumentation groups (mean ⫾ S.D.)
around the original canal to a greater degree than did the other tech-
Group N Level Mean ⴞ S.D. niques.
ProFile 20 Coronal 0.18 ⫾ 0.12
20 Middle 0.21 ⫾ 0.09
K3 20 Coronal 0.29 ⫾ 0.16 References
20 Middle 0.22 ⫾ 0.11
1. Schilder H. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269 –96.
RaCe 20 Coronal 0.32 ⫾ 0.12
2. Peters O, Peters C. Cleaning and shaping of root canal system. In: Cohen S, Hargreves
20 Middle 0.31 ⫾ 0.13
K, Keiser K, eds. Pathways of the pulp, 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc., 2006;181–201.

1200 Al-Sudani and Al-Shahrani JOE — Volume 32, Number 12, December 2006

3. Weine FS, Kelly RF, Bray KE. Effect of preparation with endodontic handpieces on
original canal shape. J Endod 1976;2:298 –303.
4. Abou-Rass M, Frank AL, Glick DH. The anticurvature filing method to prepare the
curved root canal. J Am Dent Assoc 1980;101:792– 4.
5. Abou-Rass M, Jann JM, Jobe D, Tsutsui F. Preparation of space for posting: effect on thickness
of canal walls and incidence of perforation in molars. J Am Dent Assoc 1982;104:834–7.
6. Lim KC, Webber J. The effect of root canal preparation on the shape of the curved root
canal. Int Endod J 1985;18:233–9.
7. Glosson CR, Haller RH, Dove SB, Del Rio CE. A comparison of root canal preparations
using Ni-Ti hand, Ni-Ti engine-driven, and K-Flex endodontic instruments. J Endod
1995;21:146 –51.
8. Royal JR, Donnelly JC. A comparison of maintenance of canal curvature using balanced-
force instrumentation with three different files types. J Endod 1995;21:300 – 4.
9. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner JC. A comparison of canal centering ability of four
instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1997;23:503–7.
10. Schafer E, Florek H. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared
with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved
canals. Int Endod J 2003;36:199 –207.
11. Weine FS. The use of non-ISO-tapered instruments for canal flaring. Compend Contin
Educ Dent 1996;17:651– 6, 658 – 60, 662–3; quiz 664.
12. Thompson SA, Dummer PMH. Shaping ability of Lightspeed rotary nickel-titanium
instruments in simulated root canals. Part 1. J Endod 1997a;23:698 –702.
13. Bergmans L, Van Cleynenbreugel J, Wevers M, Lambrechts P. Mechanical root canal
preparation with NiTi rotary instruments: rationale, performance and safety. Status
report for the American Journal of Dentistry. Am J Dent 2001;14:324 –33.
14. Schafer E, Vlassis M. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instru-
ments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int
Endod J 2004;37:229 –38.
15. Rangel S, Cremonese R, Bryant S, Dummer P. Shaping ability of RaCe rotary nickel-
titanium instruments in simulated root canals. J Endod 2005;31:460 –3.
16. Bramante CM, Berbert A, Borges RP. A methodology for evaluation of root canal
instrumentation. J Endod 1987;13:243–5.
17. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals.
Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32:271–5.
JOE — Volume 32, Number 12, December 2006
Basic Research—Technology
18. Kuttler S, Garala M, Perez R, Dorn SO. The endodontic cube: a system designed for
evaluation of root canal anatomy and canal preparation. J Endod 2001;27:533– 6.
19. Calhoun G, Montgomery S. The effects of four instrumentation techniques on root
canal shape. J Endod 1988;14:273–7.
20. Samyn JA, Nicholls JI, Steiner JC. Comparison of stainless steel and nickel-titanium
instruments in molar root canal preparation. J Endod 1996;22:177– 81.
21. Kosa DA, Marshall G, Baumgartner JC. An analysis of canal centering using mechan-
ical instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1999;25:441–5.
22. Ponti TM, McDonald NJ, Kuttler S, Strassler HE, Dumsha TC. Canal-centering ability
of two rotary file systems. J Endod 2002;28:283– 6.
23. Lim S, Stock C. The risk of perforation in the curved canal; anticurvature filing
compared with the step-back technique. Int Endod J 1987;20:3–9.
24. Versumer J, Hulsmann M, Schafers F. A comparative study of root canal preparation
using Profile 04 and Lightspeed rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35:
37– 46.
25. Kavanagh D, Lumley PJ. An in vitro evaluation of canal preparation using Profile 04
and 06 taper instruments. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998;14:16 –20.
26. Rhodes JS, Ford TR, Lynch JA, Liepins PJ, Curtis RV. A comparison of two nickel-
titanium instrumentation techniques in teeth using microcomputed tomography. Int
Endod J 2000;33:279 – 85.
27. Serene TP, Adams JD, Saxena A. Nickel-titanium instruments. Applications in endodontics.
St. Louis MO: Ishiyaku Euro America, Inc., 1995;1–110.
28. Himel VT, McSpadden J, Goodis HE. Instrument, materials and devices. In: Cohen S,
Hargreves K, Keiser K. Pathways of the pulp, 9th ed. St. Louis: Mosby, Inc.,
2006:233– 89.
29. Wildey WL, Senia ES, Montgomery S. Another look at root canal instrumentation. Oral
Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1992;74:499 –507.
30. Jeon IS, Spangberg LSW, Yoon TC, Kazemi RB, Kum KY. Smear layer production by
3 rotary reamers with different cutting blade designs in straight root canals: a scan-
ning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod
2003;96:601–7.
31. Gharehgozloo B, McDonald N. A comparison of the canal centering ability of K3
and ProFile Nickel Titanium rotary files. J Endod 2003;29:310(Abstract).
Centering Ability of NiTi Rotary Systems 1201