Atav Ateş, AyferArıcan, BurçinÇiftçioglu, ElifKüçükay, Enver Sedat2024-02-222024-02-222023Atav Ateş, A., Arıcan, B., Çiftçioğlu, E., & Küçükay, E. S. (2023). Negotiating the second mesiobuccal canal: A comparison of nickel titanium files through the experience of undergraduate dental students. Journal of Dental Education.0022-03371930-7837http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jdd.13165https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12713/3854ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to compare the ability of undergraduate students to reach working length (WL) in second mesiobuccal root canals (MB2) of maxillary first molars (n = 210) by using Reciproc Blue without glide path preparation, and One Curve with glide path preparation. MethodsThe students (n = 105) attended theoretical and practical courses. The first group (n = 53) shaped MB2 root canals using the One Curve system and then Reciproc Blue; the second group (n = 52) shaped MB2 root canals following the reverse sequence. Participants completed a questionnaire. The chi-square and Mann-Whitney U test were used for statistical analysis using significance of p The full WL was reached and shaping procedures were completed without complications in Reciproc Blue and One Curve groups at rates of 86.67% and 82.85%, respectively (p > 0.05). Treatment time was shorter in Reciproc Blue (p < 0.05). More (62.9%) students felt the One Curve system safer, while 61% felt the Reciproc Blue system faster. ConclusionsWithin the limitations of this study, instrument kinematics and glide path preparation did not interfere with undergraduate students' ability to achieve the WL in MB2 root canals.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessDentalEducationEndodonticsGlide PathOne CurveReciproc BlueStudentsArticle36625222WOS:0009109374000012-s2.0-85146180667Q310.1002/jdd.13165Q2