This study aimed to compare the torsional and cyclic fatigue resistance of ProGlider (PG), WaveOne Gold Glider (WGG), and TruNatomy Glider (TNG).

A total of 15 instruments of each glide path system (n = 15) were used for each test. A custom-made device simulating an angle of 90° and a radius of 5 millimeters was used to assess cyclic fatigue resistance, with calculation of number of cycles to failure. Torsional fatigue resistance was assessed by maximum torque and angle of rotation. Fractured instruments were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Data were analyzed with Shapiro-Wilk and Kruskal-Wallis tests, and the significance level was set at 5%.

The WGG group showed greater cyclic fatigue resistance than the PG and TNG groups (p < 0.05). In the torsional fatigue test, the TNG group showed a higher angle of rotation, followed by the PG and WGG groups (p < 0.05). The TNG group was superior to the PG group in torsional resistance (p < 0.05). SEM analysis revealed ductile morphology, typical of the 2 fracture modes: cyclic fatigue and torsional fatigue.

Reciprocating WGG instruments showed greater cyclic fatigue resistance, while TNG instruments were better in torsional fatigue resistance. The significance of these findings lies in the identification of the instruments’ clinical applicability to guide the choice of the most appropriate instrument and enable the clinician to provide a more predictable glide path preparation.

This study aimed to evaluate vital pulp tissue removal from different endodontic instrumentation systems from root canal apical third in vivo.

Thirty mandibular molars were selected and randomly divided into 2 test groups and one control group. Inclusion criteria were a positive response to cold sensibility test, curvature angle between 10 and 20 degrees, and curvature radius lower than 10 mm. Root canals prepared with Hero 642 system (size 45/0.02) (n = 10) and Reciproc R40 (size 40/0.06) (n = 10) and control (n = 10) without instrumentation. Canals were irrigated only with saline solution during root canal preparation. The apical third was evaluated considering the touched/untouched perimeter and area to evaluate the efficacy of root canal wall debridement. Statistical analysis used t-test for comparisons.

Untouched root canal at cross-section perimeter, the Hero 642 system showed 41.44% ± 5.62% and Reciproc R40 58.67% ± 12.39% without contact with instruments. Regarding the untouched area, Hero 642 system showed 22.78% ± 6.42% and Reciproc R40 34.35% ± 8.52%. Neither instrument achieved complete cross-sectional root canal debridement. Hero 642 system rotary taper 0.02 instruments achieved significant greater wall contact perimeter and area compared to reciprocate the Reciproc R40 taper 0.06 instrument.

Hero 642 achieved higher wall contact perimeter and area but, regardless of instrument size and taper, vital pulp during in vivo instrumentation is not entirely removed.