Background: Cleaning and shaping represent a vital step in the endodontic procedure. In routine endodontic therapy, the fracture of nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments is a procedural problem creating a major obstacle to therapy.
Aim: This study examines the life span of one Neoendo Flex and ProTaper Next (PTN) rotary file using reciprocating motion and compares the time required by both file systems for canal preparation.
Materials and methods: One hundred maxillary permanent central incisors were selected. In that, fifty teeth are utilized in a reciprocating motion (RM) with the PTN file (n = 25) and Neoendo Flex file (n = 25). To check fractured resistance and the overall root canal preparation time, fifty more teeth are employed in continuous motion (CM) with canals prepared using PTN (n = 25) and Neoendo Flex (n = 25). All canals are prepared following the sequence of respective files. Later, the fracture mechanism of the files was inspected using a scanning electron microscope.
Results: In an RM motion, both PTN and Neoendo Flex files can be used in a minimum of 25 canals in single-rooted teeth. Statistical analysis using the Mann-Whitney U-test showed no significant difference in total time taken by PTN and Neoendo Flex in both motions.
Conclusion: Within the limitation of this study, the RM was found to be better than CM with less incidence of instrument fracture.
Keywords: Continuous motion; Neoendo Flex; ProTaper Next; nickel–titanium rotary instruments; reciprocating motion.
Copyright: © 2023 Journal of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics.