EndodonticsDOI 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2793

Which Rotary File Cleans the Canal Better? A Comparison of Three NiTi Systems

Does the choice of rotary file influence how clean the canal actually becomes? A comparative study evaluated three NiTi systems and found noticeable differences in cleaning efficiency.

Dr. Zainab Rangwala

Dr. Zainab Rangwala

Chief Dentist · GDCHJ

4 min read67,933 views
  • professional education
  • root canal preparation
  • canal cleaning
  • instrumentation efficiency
  • dentistry
  • rotary files
  • niti systems
  • Endodontics
  • Clinical & Academic Article
Contents

Abstract

Effective canal preparation is essential for adequate irrigation and predictable obturation. This study compared the cleaning efficacy of three rotary NiTi systems—WaveOne Gold, Neo NiTi, and EdgeFile X1—using extracted mandibular premolars. WaveOne Gold demonstrated significantly better cleaning performance in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds compared with the other systems, highlighting the influence of file design and motion on canal cleanliness.

Cleaning efficiency during root canal preparation remains one of the core goals of instrumentation. Regardless of the system used, the objective is straightforward: shape the canal effectively while removing debris and allowing irrigants to work efficiently throughout the canal length.

A recent laboratory investigation compared the cleaning ability of three commonly used rotary nickel–titanium (NiTi) systems — EdgeFile X1, WaveOne Gold, and Neo NiTi — to see how effectively they prepare and clean the canal space.

How the Study Was Conducted

Sixty extracted human mandibular premolars were used for the study. After removal, the teeth were stored in distilled water, and the crowns were sectioned at the cementoenamel junction to standardize the samples.

The teeth were then randomly divided into three groups:

Group I: Instrumented with EdgeFile X1

Group II: Instrumented with WaveOne Gold

Group III: Instrumented with Neo NiTi

To evaluate cleaning ability, each root was grooved longitudinally on the buccal and lingual surfaces and then split vertically. This allowed direct visualization of the canal walls.

A blinded examiner assessed the remaining ink in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds using a 10× stereomicroscope. Lower scores indicated better cleaning efficiency. Statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA, with significance set at p ≤ 0.05.

What the Results Showed

Across all regions of the canal, WaveOne Gold demonstrated the best cleaning performance.

Coronal third

WaveOne Gold: 1.42 ± 0.06

Neo NiTi: 1.80 ± 0.12

EdgeFile X1: 1.94 ± 0.05

Middle third

WaveOne Gold showed the most effective cleaning with a mean score of 1.36 ± 0.01.

Apical third

WaveOne Gold: 1.30 ± 0.14

Neo NiTi: 1.70 ± 0.08

EdgeFile X1: 1.98 ± 0.20

The differences between the three systems were statistically significant at all levels (p < 0.001).

What This Means Clinically

Instrumentation remains a critical determinant of canal cleanliness. Effective shaping improves irrigant penetration and creates the taper required for predictable obturation.

In this study, WaveOne Gold consistently showed superior cleaning performance compared with Neo NiTi and EdgeFile X1 in the coronal, middle, and apical thirds.

While no file system completely eliminates debris, the findings reinforce the importance of choosing instruments that provide efficient shaping while maintaining canal anatomy.

Nickel–titanium rotary systems continue to offer advantages because of their flexibility and ability to follow curved canals with reduced procedural errors. Creating a well-shaped canal allows irrigants to act effectively and supports the placement of obturation materials to achieve an adequate apical seal.

For clinicians, the key takeaway remains practical: instrumentation technique and file selection both influence the quality of canal preparation, which ultimately impacts the success of root canal treatment.

A file shapes the canal; irrigation completes the cleaning strategy

No rotary or reciprocating instrument touches every canal wall or eliminates tissue and biofilm by itself. Laboratory comparisons are influenced by tooth selection, anatomy, preparation size, operator protocol and the chosen cleanliness measure. A statistically better result in extracted teeth does not establish superior long-term healing.

Evaluation domainClinical relevanceSafety control
Shaping abilityMaintains a path for irrigation and obturationGlide path and anatomy awareness
Debris removalSurrogate for cleaningIrrigant delivery and activation
Transportation/separationProcedural riskTorque, speed, use history and inspection
Outcome evidenceApical healing and tooth survivalDo not infer from one laboratory metric

Link instrumentation with root-canal visit selection, coronal sealing evidence and persistent canal exudation.

Frequently asked questions

Which rotary file cleans every canal best?

No system cleans every anatomy completely; selection should include safety, shaping goals and a validated irrigation protocol.

Does more debris removal prove better healing?

No. It is a laboratory surrogate, not a direct patient outcome.

Can a file replace irrigant activation?

No. Mechanical preparation and chemical disinfection have complementary roles.

References

  1. [1]Qamar Mohammadziad Hashem. Comparison of Cleaning Efficacy of EdgeFile X1, WaveOne Gold, and Neo NiTi Rotary Systems in Human Mandibular Premolars: An In Vitro Study World J Dent. 2026. DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10015-2793. Available at: source

Written by

Dr. Zainab Rangwala

Dr. Zainab Rangwala

Chief Dentist · GDCHJ

With over 12 years of clinical experience, Dr. Zainab Rangwala brings a unique blend of clinical expertise and communication excellence to her role as the Media and PR Head at DentalReach. Passionate about bridging the gap between dentistry and digital communication, she plays a key role in shaping the platform’s voice and outreach.