ABSTRACT
The contemporary approach to root canal treatment has been shifting towards engine driven filing procedures in the last decade. However, although conventional root canal procedures are slowly being phased out, it still represents the primary mode of root canal therapy in the vast majority of the developing world. The purpose of this cross sectional study was to evaluate the frequency of procedural errors in root canal treated teeth with rotary and conventional filing systems. Three hundred and forty six root canal treatment cases were assessed, out of which 173 were prepared using conventional file system and 173 were prepared using ProTaper universal [Dentsply] rotary system. Teeth in each group were evaluated radiographically using DIGORA optime software for presence or absence of procedural errors [i.e. overfills, underfills, ledge formation, perforations, apical transportation and I or instrument separation]. Out of the 173 conventionally treated teeth 57 [32.9%] had a procedural error. While, out of 173 cases prepared using ProTaper universal rotary system, 50 [28.9%] had procedural errors. The most common errors in both groups, by far, was overfill [22.5% in conventional and 16.2% in rotary]. Chi square test showed P value > 0.05 [0.416] which shows an insignificant relationship between the system used and the frequency of errors. There was little difference between the overall incidences of procedural errors in either system, however, there was a difference in the type of error produced. It is concluded that although rotary systems are not as easy to use as previously believed