Conclusions The results of this systematic review suggested that NiTi rotary instruments were associated with lower canal transportation and apical extrusion when compared to SST h and files , whereas both groups had similar outcomes in terms of success of therapy , amount of residual bacteria , and cleansing ability after treatment .
Introduction This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of  nickel‐titanium ( NiTi ) rotary files compared to stainless‐steel ( SST ) h and files .
Scanning electron microscope study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus Lightspeed instrumentation.
AIM The aim of this in vitro study was to compare the efficacy of root canal wall debridement following h and versus LightSpeed instrumentation . METHODOLOGY Twenty recently extracted single-rooted teeth were paired and r and omly placed into two treatment groups of 10 teeth each . In group 1 , a step-back instrumentation without initial coronal flaring with stainless steel Hedstroem files was used ; group 2 was instrumented with Ni-Ti LightSpeed instruments . Both groups had the same irrigation regimen : 2.5 % NaOCl and a 15 % EDTA solution . The teeth were then decoronated and each root split longitudinally into two halves to be examined using the scanning electron microscope ( SEM ) . The presence of superficial debris and smear layer was evaluated by a st and ardized grading system , and the result ing scores su bmi tted to nonparametric statistics . RESULTS Under the conditions of this study , the removal of superficial debris was generally excellent with both canal preparation techniques . Both techniques result ed in variable presence of residual smear layer , with a canal wall covered by smear layer as the predominant characteristic . Generally , the amount of smear layer was greater in the apical than in the middle third of the root , however , this difference was statistically significant ( P < 0.005 ) only in h and -instrumented teeth . The use of LightSpeed instruments was associated with significantly more ( P < 0.05 ) smear layer presence in the middle region of the root when compared with h and instrumentation . In addition , less smear layer was present in the apical region following LightSpeed instrumentation than stainless steel h and files , but this difference was not statistically significant . Differences in debridement between the two halves of the same root were more evident with LightSpeed than manual instrumentation , however , there was no statistical significance . CONCLUSIONS It may be inferred that the choice between h and and LightSpeed instrumentation should be based on factors other than the amount of root canal debridement , which does not vary significantly according to the instruments used
Conclusions The results of this systematic review suggested that NiTi rotary instruments were associated with lower canal transportation and apical extrusion when compared to SST h and files , whereas both groups had similar outcomes in terms of success of therapy , amount of residual bacteria , and cleansing ability after treatment .
Introduction This systematic review evaluated the effectiveness of  nickel‐titanium ( NiTi ) rotary files compared to stainless‐steel ( SST ) h and files .