Clinicians should be aware of all the characteristics and capacities of the instruments that are possible to use when conducting a root canal treatment. The wide variety of nickel–titanium (Ni-Ti) rotary systems on the market and the lack of standardisation of this type of instrument makes the choice in each specific case difficult. Therefore, this review is intended to summarize the characteristics that should be taken into account when choosing one instrument over another. It will be essential to know characteristics, of alloy from which the instrument is made. Moreover, the geometry of the instrument will determine its behaviour, being the mass, the one that marks its resistance to a greater extent. The movement performed by the file is another of the fundamental keys to understand rotary instruments. In conclusion, when performing root canal treatment, the characteristics of the instrument and the tooth must be taken into account, and the operator’s own limitations should be known. This paper provides the key points to keep in mind when making this type of treatment.

The efficacy of endodontic irrigation procedures can be compromised by the complexity of the root canal system. Delivering irrigants to the apical third of curved canals presents a particular challenge to endodontists. This study compared the effects of two ultrasonic irrigation techniques on the penetration of sodium hypochlorite into the main canal and simulated lateral canals of curved roots in extracted teeth. Two sets of simulated lateral canals were created at 2, 4, and 6 mm from the working length in 60 single-rooted teeth (6 canals/tooth, n = 360 canals). The teeth were randomly divided into three experimental irrigation groups: group 1 (n = 20), positive pressure irrigation (PPI); group 2 (n = 20), passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI); and group 3 (n = 20), continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI). To assess the irrigation solution penetration, 20% Chinese ink (Sanford Rotring GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) was added to a 5% sodium hypochlorite solution and delivered into the curved root canals. The penetration of contrast solution into the simulated lateral canals was scored by counting the number of lateral canals (0-2) penetrated to at least 50% of the total length. The CUI group showed significantly higher (P < 0.05) irrigant penetration into the lateral canals and into the apical third of the main canals. The PPI group showed significantly lower sodium hypochlorite penetration (P < 0.001) into the main and lateral canals compared with that in the CUI and PUI groups. Significantly higher irrigant penetration was observed in the PUI group than the PPI group. Using CUI as the final rinse significantly increased the penetration of irrigant solution into the simulated lateral canals and apical third of curved roots. Key words:Continuous ultrasonic irrigation, curved root canals, passive ultrasonic irrigation, positive pressure irrigation, root canal irrigation.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of smear layer removal after the use of different irrigation methods (passive ultrasonic irrigation (PUI), continuous ultrasonic irrigation (CUI), apical negative pressure irrigation and conventional irrigation) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as an analytical tool. A total of 100 single-canal teeth were decoronated and randomly divided into five groups (n = 20) according to the irrigation method used: conventional irrigation with front outlet syringe, conventional irrigation with lateral outlet syringe, apical negative pressure irrigation (EndoVac), PUI with Irrisafe and CUI with ProUltra PiezoFlow ultrasonic irrigation needle. Root canal preparation was performed with the ProTaper Gold system up to the F4 instrument, and 5.25% NaOCl was used as an irrigant. After chemical-mechanical preparation, the roots were split longitudinally, and the coronal, middle and apical thirds were examined. SEM digital photomicrographs were taken at ×1000 magnification to evaluate the amount of smear layer in each root canal third; CUI significantly removed more smear layer than any other irrigant activation protocol (p < 0.05); CUI was more effective in removing the smear layer than the other irrigation protocols. However, none of the irrigation protocols were able to produce root canals completely free from smear layer.