Energy consumption of ProTaper Next X1 after glide path with PathFiles and ProGlider.

INTRODUCTION Instrument failure caused by excessive torsional stress can be controlled by creating a manual or mechanical glide path. The ProGlider single-file system (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) was recently introduced to perform a mechanical glide path. This study was designed to compare the effect of a glide path performed with PathFiles (Dentsply Maillefer) and ProGlider on torque, time, and pecking motion required for ProTaper Next X1 (Dentsply Maillefer) to reach the full working length in simulated root canals. METHODS Forty Endo Training Blocks (Dentsply Maillefer) were used. Twenty were prepared with a mechanical glide path using PathFiles 1 and 2 (the PathFile group), and 20 were prepared with a mechanical glide path using a ProGlider single file (the ProGlider group). All samples were shaped with ProTaper Next X1 driven by an endodontic motor connected to a digital wattmeter. The required torque for root canal instrumentation was analyzed by evaluating the electrical power consumption of the endodontic engine. Electric power consumption (mW/h), elapsed time (seconds), and number of pecking motions required to reach the full working length with ProTaper Next X1 were calculated. Differences among groups were analyzed with the parametric Student t test for independent data (P < .05). RESULTS Elapsed time and electric power consumption were significantly different between groups (P = .0001 for both). ProGlider appears to perform more efficiently than PathFiles in decreasing electric power consumption of ProTaper Next X1 to reach the full working length. CONCLUSIONS This study confirmed the ability of ProGlider to reduce stress in ProTaper Next X1 during shaping through a glide path and preliminary middle and coronal preflaring.