Fifteen years of engine‐driven nickel–titanium reciprocating instruments, what do we know so far? An umbrella review

Abstract

AbstractNumerous systematic reviews (SRs) have produced conflicting findings on engine‐driven nickel–titanium reciprocating instruments (reciprocating instruments) since Yared's seminal study 15 years ago. This umbrella review analysed SRs examining the clinical and laboratory evidence regarding reciprocating instruments for root canal treatment. SRs that evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively the outcomes postoperative pain, oral health‐related quality of life (OHRQoL), shaping ability, debris extrusion, microbial load, endotoxins reduction, cyclic fatigue, file fracture, dentinal cracks and root canal filling removal were included. The AMSTAR 2 tool was used to evaluate SRs quality, while the ROBIS tool to assess risk of bias (RoB). Forty SRs were included. The SRs revealed predominantly ‘high’ RoB and ‘critically low’ quality. Most focused on technical outcomes, exhibiting significant methodological and statistical heterogeneity. Findings suggest comparable efficacy between reciprocating and rotary instruments. However, due to the scarcity of high‐quality evidence, future well‐designed studies and reviews considering core outcome measures are needed.