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.

This study evaluated the efficacy of 3 reciprocating systems and the effects of 2 instruments for irrigant activation on filling material removal.

Forty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars were prepared up to size 25.06 and obturated. Micro-computed tomography (micro-CT) examination #1 was performed. Teeth were then divided into 4 groups (n = 10), according to the retreatment protocol: (1) manual, (2) Reciproc Blue, (3) WaveOne Gold, and (4) X1 Blue. Micro-CT examinations #2 and #3 were performed after filling removal and repreparation, respectively. Next, all teeth were divided into 2 new groups (n = 20) according to the irrigant activation protocol: XP Clean (XP Clean size 25.02) and Flatsonic (Flatsonic ultrasonic tip). Micro-CT examination #4 was performed after irrigant activation. Statistical analysis was performed with a significance level set at 5%.

WaveOne Gold removed a significantly greater amount of filling material than the manual group (p < 0.05). The time to reach the WL was similar for all reciprocating systems (p > 0.05). X1 Blue was faster than the manual group (p < 0.05). Only manual group improved the filling material removal after the repreparation stage (p < 0.05). Both activation protocols significantly improved the filling material removal (p < 0.05), without differences between them (p > 0.05).

None of the tested instruments completely removed the filling material. X1 Blue size 25.06 reached the working length in the shortest time. XP Clean and Flatsonic improved the filling material removal.

To evaluate the fracture incidence of Reciproc R25 instruments (VDW) used during non-surgical root canal retreatments performed by students in a postgraduate endodontic program.

From the analysis of clinical record cards and periapical radiographs of root canal retreatments performed by postgraduate students using the Reciproc R25, a total of 1,016 teeth (2,544 root canals) were selected. The instruments were discarded after a single use. The general incidence of instrument fractures and its frequency was analyzed considering the group of teeth and the root thirds where the fractures occurred. Statistical analysis was performed using the χ² test (p < 0.01).

Seven instruments were separated during the procedures. The percentage of fracture in relation to the number of instrumented canals was 0.27% and 0.68% in relation to the number of instrumented teeth. Four fractures occurred in maxillary molars, 1 in a mandibular molar, 1 in a mandibular premolar and 1 in a maxillary incisor. A greater number of fractures was observed in molars when compared with the number of fractures observed in the other dental groups (p < 0.01). Considering all of the instrument fractures, 71.43% were located in the apical third and 28.57% in the middle third (p < 0.01). One instrument fragment was removed, one bypassed, while in 5 cases, the instrument fragment remained inside the root canal.

The use of Reciproc R25 instruments in root canal retreatments carried out by postgraduate students was associated with a low incidence of fractures.

The purpose of this study was to compare the maximum screw-in forces generated during the movement of various Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) file systems.

Forty simulated canals in resin blocks were randomly divided into 4 groups for the following instruments: Mtwo size 25/0.07 (MTW, VDW GmbH), Reciproc R25 (RPR, VDW GmbH), ProTaper Universal F2 (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer), and ProTaper Next X2 (PTN, Dentsply Maillefer, n = 10). All the artificial canals were prepared to obtain a standardized lumen by using ProTaper Universal F1. Screw-in forces were measured using a custom-made experimental device (AEndoS-k, DMJ system) during instrumentation with each NiTi file system using the designated movement. The rotation speed was set at 350 rpm with an automatic 4 mm pecking motion at a speed of 1 mm/sec. The pecking depth was increased by 1 mm for each pecking motion until the file reach the working length. Forces were recorded during file movement, and the maximum force was extracted from the data. Maximum screw-in forces were analyzed by one-way ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc comparison at a significance level of 95%.

Reciproc and ProTaper Universal files generated the highest maximum screw-in forces among all the instruments while M-two and ProTaper Next showed the lowest (p < 0.05).

Geometrical differences rather than shaping motion and alloys may affect the screw-in force during canal instrumentation. To reduce screw-in forces, the use of NiTi files with smaller cross-sectional area for higher flexibility is recommended.

This study aimed to compare two nickel-titanium systems (rotary vs. reciprocating) for their acceptance by undergraduate students who experienced nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments for the first time.

Eighty-one sophomore dental students were first taught on manual root canal preparation with stainless-steel files. After that, they were instructed on the use of ProTaper Universal system (PTU, Dentsply Maillefer), then the WaveOne (WO, Dentsply Maillefer). They practiced with each system on 2 extracted molars, before using those files to shape the buccal or mesial canals of additional first molars. A questionnaire was completed after using each file system, seeking students' perception about 'Ease of use', 'Flexibility', 'Cutting-efficiency', 'Screwing-effect', 'Feeling-safety', and 'Instrumentation-time' of the NiTi files, relative to stainless-steel instrumentation, on a 5-point Likert-type scale. They were also requested to indicate their preference between the two systems. Data was compared between groups using t-test, and with Chi-square test for correlation of each perception value with the preferred choice (p = 0.05).

Among the 81 students, 55 indicated their preferred file system as WO and 22 as PTU. All scores were greater than 4 (better) for both systems, compared with stainless-steel files, except for 'Screwing-effect' for PTU. The scores for WO in the categories of 'Flexibility', 'Screwing-effect', and 'Feeling-safety' were significantly higher scores than those of PTU. A significant association between the 'Screwing-effect' and students' preference for WO was observed.

Novice operators preferred nickel-titanium instruments to stainless-steel, and majority of them opted for reciprocating file instead of continuous rotating system.

The aim of this study was to assess the influence of operator experience level on the lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) in extracted teeth.

Moderately curved canals of extracted maxillary and mandibular molars were randomly distributed into 2 groups: experienced and inexperienced operators. Ten files were allocated to each group (n = 10). Each canal was prepared until the working length was reached, and the same file was used to prepare additional canals until it separated. The number of canals prepared before file separation was recorded. The fragment length of each file was measured, and the location of the fragment in the canal was determined. Data were statistically analysed using the independent 2-sample t-test.

The 2 operators prepared a total of 324 moderately curved canals of maxillary and mandibular molars. There was no significant intergroup difference in the mean number of canals prepared (p = 0.27). The average lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file was 17.1 and 15.3 canals, and the longest lifespan was 25 and 20 canals, when used by experienced and inexperienced operators, respectively. There were no statistically significant intergroup differences in separated fragment length and location.

Within the limitations of this study, operator experience level appears to have no effect on the lifespan of the WaveOne Primary file in preparation of moderately curved canals. Single teeth with multiple canals can be prepared safely even by a novice operator by using a single file.

The study was to compare the shaping ability of Reciproc (VDW) and WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer) instruments compared with ProTaper, Profile and hand instrument during the preparation of simulated root canals.

Five groups (n = 5) were established. Reciproc, WaveOne, ProTaper, Profile and K file (K-flexo file) were used to prepare the resin simulated canals. A series of preoperative and postoperative images were taken by a microscope and superimposed in 2 different layers. The amount of resin removed from both the inner and the outer sides of the canal was measured to the level of 10 mm from the apical tip, with a 1 mm increment.

The mean of resin removal from the inner canal wall was not different from the outer canal wall for Reciproc and WaveOne groups at apical third (1 - 3 mm level). There was no difference in the change of working length and maintenance of canal curvature. NiTi instruments are superior to stainless-steel K file in their shaping ability.

Within the limitation of this present study, Reciproc and WaveOne instruments maintained the original canal curvature in curved canals better than ProTaper and Profile, which tend to transport towards the outer canal wall of the curve in the apical part of the canal.