Abstract
The new Gentlefile (GF) system, made of stainless steel and developed by MedicNRG in Kibbutz Afikim, Israel, claims to have advantages over traditional nickel-titanium files. However, research has shown that nickel-titanium files are mechanically superior due to their increased flexibility, cutting efficiency, and ability to maintain canal anatomy with less risk of procedural errors. This study compared the amount of debris extrusion and the time required for root canal instrumentation using GF versus the nickel-titanium ProTaper Universal (PTU) system and a manual step-back (MSB) stainless steel technique. This in vitro experimental study utilized 66 extracted human single-canal mandibular premolars with mature apices and root curvature of less than 10 degrees. The teeth were randomly divided into three groups (n = 22) and standardized for working length before being placed in preweighed vials. Group 1 was instrumented with PTU, Group 2 with GF, and Group 3 with the MSB technique. Extruded debris was collected in the vials, dried in an incubator, and weighed using the same scale. The change in weight indicates the debris amount. Instrumentation time was recorded using a stopwatch. The normal distribution of data was assessed using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. The groups were then compared regarding the amount of extruded debris and instrumentation time using the Kruskal-Wallis test and one-way ANOVA, followed by the Games-Howell test, respectively (alpha = 0.05). No significant difference in apical debris extrusion was found among the three groups (P > 0.05). However, a significant difference in instrumentation time was detected between the groups (P < 0.05). MSB instrumentation took significantly longer than both the PTU (P = 0.001) and GF (P = 0.001) systems. The GF system did not demonstrate reduced apical debris extrusion or faster instrumentation time compared to PTU. MSB had the longest instrumentation time compared to the other techniques.