COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF PROCEDURAL ACCIDENTS IN ROOT CANAL THERAPY: INSIGHTS FROM MANUAL AND ROTARY INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES

Aim of the study The aim of this study was to assess the frequency and nature of procedural accidents occurring during manual versus rotary root canal instrumentation, as experienced by dental students and practitioners in Constanța County, Romania. Materials and methods A cross-sectional study was conducted based on a 16-item questionnaire distributed to 45 respondents, including dental students and practicing dentists. The questionnaire collected data on demographic and professional background, endodontic practices, preferred instrumentation systems, and the occurrence and management of procedural complications such as instrument fracture, ledge formation, canal transportation, and perforations. Results Most respondents were female (62.22%) and worked in urban areas (91.11%). While rotary instrumentation was preferred by 66.6% of participants, 71.1% considered manual instruments more prone to fracture. Apical transportation was reported by 64.44%, ledge formation by 77.8%, and perforations by 42.22%. Although advanced techniques are widely adopted, procedural errors remain frequent in clinical endodontic practice. Conclusions The study confirms that procedural accidents are common regardless of the instrumentation technique used. These findings underline the need for continuous education, adherence to clinical protocols, and careful instrument selection to minimize iatrogenic complications in endodontic therapy.