ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Dent. Med.
Sec. Endodontics
Volume 6 - 2025 | doi: 10.3389/fdmed.2025.1617425
Motors versus operators in simulated root canal shaping
Provisionally accepted
- University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
Select one of your emails
You have multiple emails registered with Frontiers:
Notify me on publication
Please enter your email address:
If you already have an account, please login
You don't have a Frontiers account ? You can register here
The impact of contemporary endodontic motors on shaping outcomes has not been weighed against that of the motor operators.Materials and methods: One motor (X-Smart Pro+) specifically developed for the reciprocating files that were used (Reciproc Blue R25) was compared to 3 cordless counterparts, 2 of which lacked a designated reciprocation mode. Standardized Jshaped canals in bovine incisor roots were instrumented by four different operators, who were residents with similar education and clinical experience. One reciprocating file per simulated root canal was used. Root canal models were pre-warmed and kept in a vice at 37°C in a water bath. Operators were instructed to instrument 2 simulated canals per motor in a random sequence applying 3 pecking motions, alternating with 3% NaOCl irrigation. Instrumentation time was measured. Pre-and postoperative images obtained using a digital microscope were super-imposed to assess canal transportation. Parametric tests (two-way ANOVA) were applied to weigh overall effects of motor and operator on instrumentation time and canal transportation. The impact of motor and operator on the number of unwound flutes was explored using likelihood-ratio tests. The level of significance was set at 5% (P < 0.05).Results: Operators had a highly significant (P < 0.001) impact on instrumentation time and file unwinding, while motors did not (P > 0.05). File unwinding was negatively correlated to instrumentation time (P < 0.001). There was neither an influence by motor nor operator on canal transportation (P > 0.05).Technological advancements in endodontic motors do not necessarily compensate for operator variability.
Keywords: Endodontic motor, root canal, endodontic training bloc, Reciproc, instrumentation
Received: 25 Apr 2025; Accepted: 03 Jul 2025.
Copyright: © 2025 Hofpeter, Zehnder and Deari. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
* Correspondence: Shengjile Deari, University of Zurich, Zürich, Switzerland
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.