Those belonging to the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry used NTRFs in 81-99 Percent of their cases (35.6 Percent).
Gates Glidden drills were used prior to NTRFs (/2 = 30.221, p Less than 0.01) by 52.5 Percent participants from the AEGD and Saudi Board in Re- storative Dentistry group.
The second most commonly used preparation tech- nique was the hybrid technique among the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry group (30.5 Percent), and the E and SBE group (30.8 Percent).
Four of the respondents (7.7 Percent) in the E and SBE group did not use any lubricants, while only 1 in each of the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry and the "other specialty" groups did not use any lubricant.
This was followed by the RCT of molar teeth with an almost equal number of respondents in both the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry and the endodontist and Saudi Board in Endodontics groups (55 and 50 respectively) preferring NTRFs.
Though the percentages obtained from the various groups did not differ signifi- cantly (/2 = 5.955, p = 0.7), 61 Percent of the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry, 59.6 Percent of endodontists and Saudi Board in Endodontics, 58.5 Percent of "other dental specialties," and 50 Percent of the general dentists groups relied on the number of times each file was used.
Loss of canal curvature and apical perforation were also common among general dentists and the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry group.
Respondents were asked, "how many rotary files have you broken up to now?"; 39 Percent of the AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry group (/2 = 37.751a, p Less than 0.001), 35.1 Percent of the general dentists group, and 34.1 Percent of the "other dental specialty" group reported having broken 1-3 files (Table 10).
AEGD and Saudi Board in Restorative Dentistry subjects reported complex canal anatomy (62.7 Percent) and improper access cavity (40.7 Percent) to be fac- tors causing file separation (p Less than 0.01).