Canal Transportation, Centering Ability, and Cyclic Fatigue Promoted by Twisted File Adaptive and Navigator EVO Instruments at Different Motions

This study compared the cyclic fatigue and the canal transportation promoted by Twisted File (TF) Adaptive and Navigator EVO systems when used with 2 different motions. Forty mesiobuccal roots of maxillary molars were scanned by using micro–computed tomography imaging before and after root canal preparation with the 2 instrument systems used with 2 motions (adaptive and continuous rotation). Samples were divided into 4 groups: TFA, TF Adaptive instruments under adaptive motion; TFC, TF Adaptive instruments under continuous motion; NA, Navigator instruments under adaptive motion; and NC, Navigator instruments under continuous motion. Root canals were prepared until 35.04 instruments. Apical transportation was analyzed by using micro–computed tomography at 3 levels: 3, 6, and 9 mm from the apex. The cyclic fatigue tests were performed by using a custom-made device. Ten instruments of each brand were activated by using a 6:1 reduction handpiece powered by a torque-controlled motor using the preset programs “custom mode” and “TF Adaptive” to activate 25.06 and 35.04 instruments. Kruskal-Wallis and Dunn tests were used to assess canal transportation, centering ability, and canal volume. The Student t test was used to evaluate cyclic fatigue (P = .05). At 3 and 9 mm, the canal transportation and centering ability were similar in all groups (P > .05). At 6 mm, TFC presented higher canal transportation toward furcal region than NA and NC (P