The aim of this study was to examine the use of hand or rotary files by pre-graduation (fourth- and fifth-year) and postgraduate students in endodontic treatments and to determine the incidence of file fracture and the management of cases with broken instruments.

A total of 2,168 teeth undergoing primary endodontic treatment were included in this study. It was determined that 79 of these teeth resulted in broken tools. In the case of broken tools, the education level of the treating clinician, the tooth that was being treated, the canal and fracture level, the curvature of the tooth and the management of the broken instrument were recorded. Periapical radiographs of the patients were used to calculate curvature following the Schneider method.

There was no significant difference in the incidence of broken tools according to education level (p > 0.05). The incidence of file fracture in molar teeth (73.4%) was higher than in other teeth (p < 0.05). More files were broken in the mandibular molar MB canal (20.25%) and in the apical third of the canals (72.1%). The risk of instrument fracture was high in teeth with moderate (44.3%) and severe (38%) curvature canals. The management of apically broken (80%) files mostly involved lefting (p < 0.05).

There was no statistically significant difference between fourth-year students, fifth-year students and postgraduate students in terms of instrument fracture.

To compare the formation of dentinal defects using stainless-steel hand K-files (HFs), rotary files, reciprocating files, and Self-Adjusting File (SAF), when used for oval root canals.

One hundred and forty extracted human mandibular premolar with single root and oval canal were selected for this study. Oval canals were confirmed by exposing to mesio-distal and bucco-lingual radiographs. Teeth with open apices or anatomic irregularities were excluded. All selected teeth were de-coronated perpendicular to the long axis of the tooth, leaving roots segments approximately of 16 mm in length. Twenty teeth were left unprepared (control), and the remaining 120 teeth were divided into 6 groups (n = 20) and instrumented using HF (size 40/0.02), Revo-S (RS; size 40/0.06), ProTaper NEXT (PTN; size 40/0.06), WaveOne (WO; size 40/0.09), RECIPROC (RC; size 40/0.06), and the SAF (2 mm). Roots were then sectioned 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex, and observed under stereomicroscope, for presence of dentinal defects. “No defect” was defined as root dentin that presented with no visible microcracks or fractures. “Defect” was defined by microcracks or fractures in the root dentin.

The control, HF, and SAF did not exhibit any dentinal defects. In roots instrumented by RS, PTN, WO, and RC files exhibited microcracks (incomplete or complete) in 40%, 30%, 55%, and 50%, respectively.

The motor-driven root canal instrumentation with rotary and reciprocating files may create microcracks in radicular dentine, whereas the stainless-steel hand file instrumentation, and the SAF produce minimal or less cracks.