Evaluation of instrumentation systems in reducing E. faecalis from root canals: TF adaptive and ProTaper next versus single file systems.

PURPOSE: To compare the effect of the TF Adaptive, ProTaper Next, OneShape, WaveOne, Reciproc, (SAF) on the reduction of E. faecalis in experimentally infected root canals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 70 human mandibular incisor teeth with straight roots and single root canals were selected for this experiment and the root canals of the selected teeth were infected with E. faecalis. After contamination, all the root canals were randomly divided into 7 groups: control, ProTaper Next, TF Adaptive, SAF, WaveOne, Reciproc, and OneShape. After the irrigation procedures, samples were taken from root canals with paper points and incubated in blood agar plates. The colonies grown on the blood agar were counted and interpreted as colony forming units per milliliter. RESULTS: Analysis of results showed that all instrumentation systems were more effective in reducing the number of bacteria than the control (P<.001). The ProTaper Next, TF Adaptive, WaveOne, Reciproc, and OneShape systems were significantly more effective than the SAF system in reducing E. faecalis within the root canals (P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: All instrumentation systems used in this study provided a significant reduction in bacterial populations.

Dentinal crack formation during root canal preparations by the twisted file adaptive, ProTaper Next, ProTaper Universal, and WaveOne instruments.

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the incidence of root cracks after root canal instrumentation with the TF Adaptive, WaveOne, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Universal systems. METHODS: Seventy-five extracted mandibular central incisors with mature apices and straight root canals (<5°) were selected and kept in distilled water. The root canals were instrumented by using the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and TF Adaptive systems. All the roots were horizontally sectioned 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex with a low-speed saw under water cooling. The slices were then viewed through a stereomicroscope at ×25 magnification. The samples were photographed with a camera to determine the presence of dentinal cracks. RESULTS: The control group had no cracks, and the difference between the control group and the experimental groups was statistically significant (P < .001). The ProTaper Next and TF Adaptive systems produced significantly less cracks than the ProTaper Universal and WaveOne systems in the apical section (3 mm) (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Under the study conditions and within the limitations of this study, it can be concluded that the ProTaper Universal, ProTaper Next, WaveOne, and TF Adaptive instruments can result in dentinal cracks.