This systematic review (register-osf.io/wg7ba) compared the efficacy and safety of rotary and reciprocating kinematics in the removal of filling material from curved root canals.

Only in vitro studies evaluating both kinematics during retreatment were included. A systematic search (PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and other databases, until January 2021), data extraction, and risk of bias analysis (Joanna Briggs Institute checklist) were performed. Efficacy in filling removal was the primary outcome.

The search resulted in 2,795 studies, of which 15 were included. Efficacy was measured in terms of the remaining filling material and the time required for this. Nine studies evaluated filling material removal, of which 7 found no significant differences between rotary and reciprocating kinematics. Regarding the time for filling removal, 5 studies showed no difference between both kinematics, 2 studies showed faster results with rotary systems, and other 2 showed the opposite. No significant differences were found in apical transportation, centering ability, instrument failure, dentin removed and extruded debris. A low risk of bias was observed.

This review suggests that the choice of rotary or reciprocating kinematics does not influence the efficacy of filling removal from curved root canals. Further studies are needed to compare the kinematics safety in curved root canals.

The present study aimed to evaluate the shaping ability of 2 thermally treated nickel-titanium reciprocating systems in simulated curved canals.

Forty simulated canals were prepared to apical size 25 using Reciproc Blue R25 (VDW) and WaveOne Gold Primary (Dentsply Sirona) instruments. Standard pre- and post-preparation images were taken and superimposed. The removal of resin material was measured at 5 standard points: the canal orifice, halfway between the canal orifice and the beginning of the curve, the beginning of the curve, the apex of the curve, and the end-point of the simulated canal. The data were analysed using the independent sample t-test with a 5% significance threshold.

The canals in which Reciproc Blue R25 was used showed a significantly greater widening than those in which WaveOne Gold was used at 4 of the 5 measurement points (p < 0.05). The Reciproc Blue R25 instrument removed significantly more resin from the inner aspect of the curve at 2 of the 5 points and similar amounts at the remaining 3 points. At the 2 apical points, there was no significant difference between the Reciproc Blue R25 and WaveOne Gold Primary instruments.

Both instruments respected the original canal anatomy; however, WaveOne Gold resulted in a more conservative shape with less transportation.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the shaping ability of newly marketed single-file instruments, Wave·One (Dentsply-Maillefer) and Reciproc (VDW GmbH), in terms of maintaining the original root canal configuration and curvature, with or without a glide-path.

According to the instruments used, the blocks were divided into 4 groups (n = 10): Group 1, no glide-path / Wave·One; Group 2, no glide-path / Reciproc; Group 3, #15 K-file / Wave·One; Group 4, #15 K-file / Reciproc. Pre- and post-instrumented images were scanned and the canal deviation was assessed. The cyclic fatigue stress was loaded to examine the cross-sectional shape of the fractured surface. The broken fragments were evaluated under the scanning electron microscope (SEM) for topographic features of the cross-section. Statistically analysis of the data was performed using one-way analysis of variance followed by Tukey's test (α = 0.05).

The ability of instruments to remain centered in prepared canals at 1 and 2 mm levels was significantly lower in Group 1 (p < 0.05). The centering ratio at 3, 5, and 7 mm level were not significantly different.

The Wave·One file should be used following establishment of a glide-path larger than #15.