RESEARCH
Comparison of Root Canal Cleaning Ability of ProTaper and
Liberator Rotary NiTi Instrument Systems-A SEM Study.
Ajay Vazhiyodan,1 Saketh Rama Rao,2 Prabeesh Padmanabhan,3
Namratha Lakshmi Pragada,4 Lata D A 5
ABSTRACT
Effective cleaning and shaping of the root canal system is
essential for achieving the biological and mechanical objectives of
root canal treatment. The objective of this study was to compare
the root canal cleaning effectiveness of two different rotary
Nickel-Titanium instruments using scanning electron microscopy.
In Group 1-cleaning and shaping was done using ProTaper to size
30 (F3) and in Group 2- cleaning and shaping was done using
Liberator to size 30 (6%). Two uninstrumented teeth in each
group were taken as control group. Instrumentation was done
according to manufacturers instructions. The intracanal irrigant
used after each file was 2 ml of 3.0% sodium hypochlorite. All
samples were decoronated, split buccolingually for evaluation
under SEM to determine canal cleanliness. All teeth were
analyzed with the SEM at 20.0 kV and 500 magnifications in the
middle third of the canal. Result showed the amount of debris
present after root canal instrumentation with Liberator and
ProTaper were statistically insignificant.
Keywords: - Debris, NiTi files, ProTaper Files, Liberator Files,
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM).
Introduction
Effective cleaning and shaping of the root canal
system is essential for achieving the biological and
mechanical objectives of root canal treatment. Cleaning
and shaping enlarges the canal and facilitates the
cleaning action of irrigants and the removal of infected
dentin (1). Nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments represent
a relatively new approach to the rapid preparation of
Patri, 2 Yoshaskam Agnihotri, S.Balagopal few
canals with standardized taper. NiTi instruments
3
been shown to be superior to stainless steel (SS) in
have
terms of cutting efficacy, flexibility, and torsional
resistance (2). In recent years, nickel-titanium rotary
systems such as the ProTaper (Universal
DENTSPLY/Maillefer, Switzerland), have significantly
altered root canal instrumentation. ProTaper is known
to better cutting efficiency, flexibility, safety and
simplicity. Thus it has becomes a popular rotary system,
particularly among practitioners(3). Liberator files
IJCD DECEMBER, 2011 2(6)
rotate
95 at 1,000-2,000 RPM, provides excellent tactile
2011 Int. Journal of Contemporary Dentistry
sensation in root canal. And it cut dentin faster than
particularly among practitioners(3). Liberator files
rotate at 1,000-2,000 RPM, provides excellent tactile
sensation in root canal. And it cut dentin faster than
conventional rotary files. However there is currently
less published data in evaluating the Liberator rotary
system for canal cleaning ability. The purpose of this
study was to compare the root canal cleaning
effectiveness of two different rotary Nickel-Titanium
instruments [ProTaper- variable taper and liberator 0.06
taper] using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Material and methods
Thirty extracted mandibular pre-molars were
selected .Access cavity was prepared with high speed
hand- piece using water coolant, and Working length
was determined using #10 K-file. Teeth were randomly
divided into two groups. Two uninstrumented teeth in
each group were taken as control group. In Group 1-
cleaning and shaping was done using ProTaper to size
30 (F3) and in Group 2- cleaning and shaping was done
using Liberator to size 30 (6%). Instrumentation was
done according to manufacturers instructions. The
intracanal irrigant used after each file was 2 ml of 3.0%
sodium hypochlorite. All samples were decoronated,
split buccolingually for evaluation under SEM to
determine canal cleanliness. All teeth were analyzed
with the SEM at 20.0 kV and 500 magnifications in the
middle third of the canal (04).
Debris was defined as dentin chips, pulp remnants,
and particles loosely attached to the root canal wall.
Scoring of the debris was done under magnification
(Anne et al 2009). Score 1: Clean root canal wall, only
4 small debris particles; Score 2: Few small
agglomerations of debris; Score 3: Many
agglomerations of debris covering less than 50% of the
root canal wall; Score 4: More than 50% of the root
canal wall covered by debris; and Score 5: Complete or
nearly complete root canal wall covered by debris04.
The obtained scores were analyzed using Mann-
Whitney test.
 RESEARCH
Results Discussion
The scores obtained from both the methods were The goals of endodontic instrumentation are to
analyzed using Mann-Whitney test. A p-value of <0.05 completely remove microorganisms, debris and tissue
was considered to be significant. by enlarging the canal diameter and create a canal form
that allows a proper seal. The objective are to remove
Table 1 : The descriptive statistics and the p-values all pulp tissue, bacteria and their by-products, provide
adequate canal shape and also enhances three-
dimensional obturation of the prepared space (Schilder
1974) (1). During debridement, irrigants and debris may
Group n Mean SD Median P- be extruded in to the periradicular region leading to
value periradicular inflammation and interappointment flare-
ups (5). Engine-driven nickel-titanium instruments have
ProTaper 13 2.92 0.8165 3
been shown to prepare the root canal rapidly, and
maintain the canal shape and working length with few
Liberator 13 3.00 0.91287 3 0.8572 aberrations during root canal preparation. Engine-
driven rotary instruments will produce less debris than
hand filing techniques, since they have tendency to pull
the debris into the flutes of the instrument, thus leading
them out of the root canal in a coronal direction. They
No statistically significant difference was found are available in various designs that differ in tip and
between the scores obtained from ProTaper and taper, rake angles, helical angles, pitch, and presence of
Liberator (P>0.05). Even though higher mean scores and radial lands (6, 7). Hence this study was conducted to
median scores were recorded in Liberator compared to evaluate the cleaning ability of newer rotary techniques
ProTaper, the difference was not found to be like ProTaper and Liberator.
statistically significant.

Controls group score were 5; therefore, statistical
analysis did not include the control group.
Graph 1 showing mean debris collected in root canal after
instrumentation.
In this study a comparison was made of the cleanliness
of oval-shaped root canals after preparation with two
automated devices using a step-down technique. It has
been shown by several investigators that neither
instruments nor instrumentation techniques in canal
preparation achieve complete cleanliness of root canal
walls (Peters & Barbakow 2000, Ahlquist et al. 2001)(8).
The results corroborated these findings in that none of
the devices and/or techniques employed in this study
was completely successful in cleaning the walls of the
root canals. Different methodologies using SEM have
been used to score debris after instrumentation (Peters
& Barbakow 2000, Schafer & Zapke 2000, Ahlquist et al.
2001, Mayer et al. 2002). SEM offers high-resolution
images and allows the observation of areas covered by
debris and/or smear layer as well as the identification of
patent dentinal tubules.
In the present study, the cleaning efficiency was
examined on the basis of a numerical evaluation
scheme for debris, by means of an SEM-evaluation of
the middle parts of the canals (Haikel & Allemann 1988,
Hulsmann et al. 1997). No precondition was given how
to select the region of the root canal wall which was
taken for scoring. It has to be taken into consideration
that this selection might be biased, as cleaner sections
might be preferred for scoring. No assessment as to the
presence of debris was made in areas that were not
instrumented. With all these systems, partially un-
instrumented areas with remaining debris were found
in all canal sections. This finding has also been
described by others (Bolanos & Jensen 1980, Hulsmann

IJCD DECEMBER, 2011 2(6) 96

2011 Int. Journal of Contemporary Dentistry
 RESEARCH
et al. 1997, 2003, Prati et al. 2004, Haapasalo et al.
2005, Paque et al. 2009, Fornari et al. 2010)(9).
At the apical part, the debris covered the root
canal walls in the majority of the specimens for all
groups and only a few dentinal tubule orifices were
discernable. This was probably due to the fact that
during instrumentation the tip of the irrigant needle
could not be placed closer than 34 mm from the
working length. It has been demonstrated that there is
little flushing action beyond the tip of a needle, unless it
is binding to the walls of the root canal and the
irrigating solution is forcibly expressed (Chow 1983). In
the current study, the needle was placed as deep as
possible without binding, Deeper placement of the
needle slowly improved as the instrumentation
progressed, however, this only occurred during final
flushing and after complete preparation of the apical
third of the canals.
Another important fact that needs to be emphasized
is that efficient cleaning does not necessarily depend
only on the type of instrument or instrumentation
technique used. In order to dissolve debris and smear
layer, chemical irrigation solutions are recommended
along with mechanical instrumentation (Hulsmann et
al. 1997, Peters & Barbakow 2000, Mayer et al. 2002).
Baumgartner & Mader (1987) found that alternating
solutions of EDTA with NaOCl was the most effective
combination to produce clean root canal walls. Their
study demonstrated the importance of using a chelating
agent such as EDTA in combination with NaOCl, to
effectively remove the inorganic and organic
components of the smear layer (10).
The present study demonstrates that cleaning can
be significantly improved once shaping procedures are
completed (the shaping and cleaning the root canal
system concept). The ability to effectively clean the
endodontic space is dependent on both
instrumentation and irrigation. Endodontic instruments
may, in themselves, vary in their debris removal
efficacy, due to their specific flute design. It has been
shown that Ni-Ti rotary crown-down preparation
technique is very effective and allows predictable
shaping in significantly less time than conventional
techniques (11, 12). It creates a smooth funnel-form
shape that permits deeper penetration of needles and
irrigating solutions during the early instrumentation
phases. The use of Ni-Ti rotary instruments can be
significantly advantageous, provided that the saved
preparation time is spent to improve debridement.
The root canal shaping procedure is complex when
relatively nontapered instruments are used to create
tapered root canal shapes (Buchanan 2000). With the
introduction of more tapered nickel-titanium rotary
instruments this difficulty was alleviated and it became
possible to produce a better centered and rounder
canal preparation when compared with hand operated
files (Glosson et al. 1995). A modification of the
instrument sets containing instruments with different
IJCD DECEMBER, 2011 2(6)
97 2011 Int. Journal of Contemporary Dentistry
tapers is the ProTaper system, which incorporates
instruments of progressive multitaper design with sharp
cutting blades (Ruddle 2002) (13). ProTaper system has
variable taper with convex, triangular cross-section, a
changing helical angle and pitch over their cutting
blades with non-cutting tip. Protaper systems were
chosen as the standard for comparison in this study due
to their popularity and published research evaluating
these systems (14). The advantage of this progressive
taper, whereby only a limited part of the instruments
cutting surface makes contact with the root canal wall,
together with the absence of radial lands, is likely to be
a reduction of torsional loads on these instruments
(Ruddle 2002)
In this study, no statistical significant difference
were observed, even though debris was present in
dentin surface after root canal instrumentation,
because similar studies conducted by Sarina and Hicks
1998, the debris produced by ProTaper was less
compared to hand instrumentation using step back and
balanced forced technique (15).because the flutes
present in the files removed the debris apically, but in
oval shaped canals untouched areas will be more in
protaper. And Ni-TI instrument transport the debris
from apical to middle third (root canal anatomy of
premolar in apex is round and middle third is oval in
shape).during irrigation the debris collected in the
middle third were pushed to apex. ProTaper
instruments might be better suited for curved and
constricted canals than wide, immature ones. (16)
The Liberator files incorporate a unique straight blade
design, triangular cross-section, Lack of radial lands
provide sharp cutting edges and reduce torque demand
on Liberator files, and that eliminates the traditional
helical flutes found on virtually all rotary endodontic
files. The Liberator files do not self-thread into the
canal. Self-threading is a major contributor to file
separation.
Higher mean scores and median scores were recorded
in Liberator compared to ProTaper, the difference was
not found to be statistically significant. This is probably
because nonfluted instruments cant engage the debris
and remove it in a coronal direction. (Daniel pinto et al
2006) (17). and also Liberator rotates in higher RPM, in
which cant push the debris apically.
In this study, SEM evaluation of the root canal surfaces
showed areas of the canal walls covered by a smear
layer and debris in all groups. Canals of all of the
specimens showed the existence of un-instrumented
surfaces regardless of the rotary system used. Complete
canal cleanliness was not achieved by any of the
techniques and instruments (18).

Conclusion
The Liberator and ProTaper files were unable to
produce a dentine surface free from smear layer and
debris.
The amount of debris present after root canal
instrumentation with Liberator and ProTaper were
statistically insignificant.
However the mean score of liberator was
slightly high, this may be due to the absence of flutes
and the speed (rpm) of this instruments.
The presence of deep grooves and depression
on dentine walls may well explain the presence of less
instrumented areas.
However further clinical studies are needed to
evaluate in efficiency liberator NiTi systems.
References
1. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one NiTi
rotary instrument: Preliminary observations. Int
Endod J 2008; 41:339-44.
2. Ruiz-Hubard Eduardo E, Gutman James L and
Wagner Martin J. A quantitative assessment of
canal debris forced periapically during root canal
instrumentation using two different techniques. J
Endodon 1987; 12:554-558.
3. Ruddle Clifford J. The ProTaper technique.
Endodontic Topics 2005; 10:187-90.
4. Anne E. Williamson, DDS, MS, Allan J. Sandor, DDS,
and Bruce C. Justman, DDS, A Comparison of Three
Nickel Titanium Rotary Systems, EndoSequence,
ProTaper Universal, and Profile GT, for Canal-
cleaning Ability, Journal Of Endodontics 35,1,
107-109,2009.
5. Kustarci Alper, Akpinar Kerem Engin and Er Kursat.
Apical extrusion of intracanal debris and irrigant
following use of various instrumentation
techniques. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral
Radiol Endod 2008; 105:257-62.
6. Ruiz-Hubard Eduardo E, Gutman James L and
Wagner Martin J. A quantitative assessment of
canal debris forced periapically during root canal
instrumentation using two different techniques. J
Endodon 1987; 12:554-558.
7. Ruddle Clifford J. The ProTaper technique.
Endodontic Topics 2005; 10:187-90
8. Ahlquist M, Henningsson O, Hultenby K, Ohlin J
(2001) The effectiveness of manual and rotary
techniques in the cleaning of root canals: a scanning
electron microscopy study. International
Endodontic Journal 34, 5337.
9. Fornari VJ, Silva-Sousa YT, Vanni JR, Pecora JD,
Versiani MA, Sousa-Neto MD (2010) Histological
evaluation of the effectiveness of increased apical
enlargement for cleaning the apical third of curved
canals. International Endodontic Journal 43, 988
94.
IJCD DECEMBER, 2011 2(6)
2011 Int. Journal of Contemporary Dentistry
RESEARCH
10. Mayer BE, Peters OA, Barbakow F (2002) Effects of
rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on
debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron
microscopic study. International Endodontic Journal
35, 5829.
11. Glosson CR, Hailer RH, Dove SB, del Rio CE. A
comparison of root canal preparation using NiTi
hand, NiTi engine-driven, and K-flex endodontic
instruments. J Endodon 1995;21:146-51.
12. Short JA, Morgan LA, Baumgartner. A comparison
of canal centering ability of four instrumentation
techniques. J Endodon 1997;23:503-7.
13. Ruddle C (2002) Cleaning and shaping the root
canal system. In: Cohen S, Burns RC, eds . Pathways
of the Pulp, 8th edn.St Louis, MO: Mosby, pp. 231
92.
14. Williamson, Anne E., Sando Allan J r, and Justman
Bruce C. A Comparison of Three Nickel Titanium
Rotary Systems, EndoSequence, ProTaper Universal,
and Profile GT for Canal-cleaning Ability. J Endodon
2009; 35:107109.
15. Reddy Sarina A and Hicks M Lamar. Apical extrusion
of debris using two hand and two rotary
instrumentation techniques. J Endodon 1998;
3:180-86.
16. F. L. G. Calberson, C. A. J. G. Deroose, G. M. G.
Hommez & R. J. G. De Moor. Shaping ability of
ProTaper nickel-titanium files insimulated resin root
canals. Int Endod 2004, 37, 613623
17. De Oliveira DP, Barbizam JVB,Trope M, Teixeira FB.
Comparison between Gutta-Percha and Resilon
Removal Using Two Different Techniques in
Endodontic Retreatment. J Endod 2006 ;Volume 32,
Issue 4 :362-364
18. F. Foschi, C. Nucci, L. Montebugnoli, S. Marchionni,
L. Breschi, V. A. Malagnino & C. Prati SEM
evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of
Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments,
International Endodontic Journal, 37, 832839,
2004.
19. Sonntag David, Ott Mareike, Kook Kathrin and
Stachniss Vitus. Root canal preparation with the
NiTi systems K3, Mtwo AND ProTaper. Aust Endod
2007; 33:73-81.
20. Kim H C, Kim C J, Kim B M, Park J K and Versluis A.
Mechanical response of nickel-titanium instruments
with different cross-sectional designs during
shaping of simulated curved canals. Int Endod 2009;
42: 593-02.
21. Kim K C. Mechanical response of NiTi instruments
with different cross-sectional design during shaping
of simulated curved canals. J Endodon 2009; 5:883-
86.
98
 RESEARCH

About the Authors

1. Dr. Ajay Vazhiyodan MDS,

Sr. Lecturer,
Dept. Of Conservative Dentistry&
Endodontics
Educare Dental College,Kerala

2. Dr Saketh Rama Rao MDS,

Reader,
Dept. Of Conservative Dentistry&
Endodontics
Hi Tech Dental College & Hospital,
Bhubaneswar

3. Dr Prabeesh Padmanabhan MDS,

Reader,
Dept. Of Conservative Dentistry&
Endodontics,
M.R Ambedkar Dental College& Hospital,
Bangalore

4. Dr.Namratha Lakshmi Pragada MDS,

Senior Lecturer,
Dept.Of Prosthodontics
Hi Tech Dental College&Hospital,
Bhubaneswar

5. Dr Lata D A MDS,

Professor,
Dept. Of Conservative Dentistry&
Endodontics

Correspondence Address

Dr. Ajay Vazhiyodan MDS,

Deepa Garden
Vengeri Post
Kozhikode,
Kerala-673010

Email: scorpio6361@yahoo.com

IJCD DECEMBER, 2011 2(6)

99 2011 Int. Journal of Contemporary Dentistry