Objectives: The aim of this research is to compare the different glide path instruments in order to assess the work time and the number of use for each instrument. Materials and methods: There were used 100 endodontic resin blocks with an S curvature for each group of instruments, on each block, first were used the k file # 10 and then the glide path was done using always the Xsmart machine, setting torque 5.2 n/cm2, speed 250 g/m, all instruments were used until their separation and then the results were studied. The time was also counted to obtain the complete pre-flaring for each group. The same test was also repeated on extracted teeth, chosen from mb canal of maxillary molars, and mandibular molars, a total of 50 canals for each group; also in this group the pre-flaring was done counting the number of use for each instrument up to their separation and counting the time to obtain it. Result and conclusions: Pathfiles group tested on resin blocks: pathfile #13 the result was: 100 out of 100 canals, pathfiles#16: 60 out of 100 canals, pathfile #19: 42 out of 100 canals. Pathfiles group tested on extracted teeth: pathfile #13: 50 out off 50 canals, pathfiles#16: 50 out of 50 canals, pathfile #19: 50 out of 50 canals, no separated instruments. Proglider group on resin block: single proglider 100 out of 100 blocks. Proglider group on extracted teeth: single proglider 50 out of 50 canals. Time to obtain the pre-flaring with pathfile: 10 s. Time to obtain the pre-flaring with proglider: 8 s. Both files give good results for an effective canal pre-flaring and glide path, making easier the following canal shaping independently of the chosen shaping technique. There are no significant differences in the working time, and the strength of the pathfiles is confirmed for the new M-wire file: proglider.
- Canal shaping
ASJC Scopus subject areas