Aim: The aim of the study was to compare the shaping ability and cutting efficiency of Neolix Neoniti with Hyflex EDM and Protaper NEXT.
Material and Methods: A total of 30 human permanent mandibular molars having curvature of about 20°- 40° were selected for the study. The teeth were randomly allocated into three groups (n=10): Group 1: Protaper NEXT; Group 2: Hyflex EDM; Group 3: Neoniti. Mesiobuccal canals of mesial roots were prepared with the three systems according to manufacturer's instruction. All samples were scanned using cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) before and after instrumentation to evaluate shaping ability of the three tested systems. To evaluate cutting efficiency, A custom made device was made and 30 plexiglas blocks (30 x 30 x 2 mm) were used. The exact length of the Plexiglas block cut in 1 minute was measured in mm for all tested groups. Data were statistically analyzed using One-way ANOVA to compare between different groups, followed by Tukey's Post Hoc test for multiple comparisons.
Results: All three systems functioned very similarly regarding canal transportation, centering ability and changes in canal curvatures when used in moderately curved canals. After root canal instrumentation, there was no significant difference in shaping ability between groups (P>0.05). There was, however, a significant difference in the cutting efficiency between the three systems (P<0.05) where Hyflex EDM showed higher cutting efficiency with respect to Protaper NEXT and Neoniti.
Conclusion: The triangular cross-sectional design and EDM technology resulted in superior cutting efficiency of the file.