Assessment of Different File Systems for Working Time Based on Glide Path, Operating Kinetics, and the Fracture Resistance.

AIM: This study was done to assess the time to achieve the working distance based on the size of the glide path, operating kinetics, and the fracture resistance of different file systems. MATERIALS AND METHOD: One hundred and eighty mandibular premolars were divided into two groups of 90 each. Group I was subjected to continuous 360 degrees rotary motion and group II to adaptive motion. Twisted File (TF) and Endostar E3 file methods were practiced in groups. The time (seconds) to achieving desired working length was recorded. Failures were classified as torsional failure or flexural failure. RESULTS: The time taken by glide path size 15 in group I was 5.90 +/- 4.06 seconds and in group II was 6.12 +/- 4.16 seconds. The time taken by glide path size 20 in group I was 5.86 +/- 3.12 seconds and in group II was 4.22 +/- 2.10 seconds, with 25 size the time taken in group I was 5.32 +/- 2.48 seconds and in group II was 3.16 +/- 3.14 seconds. The time taken by group I was less as compared to group II, and the difference was significant (p < 0.05). There was a significant difference in time taken with different number files in both groups (p < 0.05). The mean time taken reaching the working length for continuous rotation was less as compared to TF adaptive motion; however, the difference was nonsignificant (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: We recorded higher instrument separation and deformation with the TF method and adaptive gesture. The TF system showed additional time to achieve the working distance as compared to the Endostar E3 system. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The TF system showed higher instrument separation and deformation, and it requires additional time to achieve the working distance compared to the Endostar E3 system. Hence, the Endostar E3 system is effective in achieving required clinical results.