# ProTaper Next vs ProTaper Ultimate Dentsply Sirona [TR](https://endo-guide.app/tr/compare/protaper-next-vs-protaper-ultimate) ## ProTaper Next® Dentsply Sirona Progressive Efficiency [View protocol →](https://endo-guide.app/system/protaper-next) ## ProTaper Ultimate™ Dentsply Sirona The Ultimate Evolution [View protocol →](https://endo-guide.app/system/protaper-ultimate) Clinical Tip ProTaper Next for M-Wire swaggering motion with reduced engagement. ProTaper Ultimate for a gold K-file-free workflow in severely curved canals. ## When to choose which Choose ProTaper Next when - you want the harder M-Wire alloy and the higher torsional strength at the ISO test point: Next X2 broke at a higher torque than Ultimate F2 in one bench series (PMID 41964818) - your fatigue reference is a room-temperature steel canal with a tight radius: Next X2 outlasted Ultimate F2 there (PMID 35912033) - the case is a retreatment: both systems left the same residue in single-rooted premolars, so the system you already own is the rational choice (PMID 39768860) Choose ProTaper Ultimate when - you want a K-file-free glide path and a highly flexible finishing file: Ultimate F2 needed one of the lowest bending loads of six multi-file systems, while Next sat among the stiffer ones (PMID 40141543) - the canal is severely curved and centring in the apical third matters: Ultimate F1 centred better than Next X2 at 3 mm and 5 mm in canals over 25 degrees (PMID 41744930) - repeated torsional loading worries you more than bending: Ultimate F2 survived more torsional cycles than Next X2 at both room and body temperature (PMID 41826551) ## What the comparative evidence shows 8 comparative full-text studies read for this pair Eight comparative full texts were read for this pair: one randomised trial, three shaping studies in extracted teeth, one retreatment study, and three bench studies of fatigue, torsion and bending. The two systems share the ProTaper variable-taper idea and an off-centred cross-section (rectangle for Next, parallelogram for Ultimate), and differ in alloy and heat treatment (M-Wire for Next; M-Wire, Gold and Blue by file for Ultimate), in motor settings (300 rpm for Next, 400 rpm at 4.0 to 5.2 Ncm for Ultimate) and in the Slider-first glide path of Ultimate. The one clinical trial found no difference. In 28 necrotic mandibular premolars with asymptomatic apical periodontitis, preparation to Ultimate F3 or Next X3 reduced cultivable bacteria to the same degree, with the caveat that F3 carries a 9 % apical taper and X3 a 7 % taper, so the preparations were not identical (PMID 41169779). On shaping, a micro-CT study of 50 mandibular premolars with 10 to 35 degrees of curvature found a smaller canal-volume increase and less dentin loss with Ultimate to F2 than with Next to X2, and a smaller uninstrumented area in the coronal third; in that study the Ultimate group used the Slider without a hand glide path while the Next group had one (PMID 40546860). In 50 mandibular first molars, Ultimate to F2 and Next to X2 left the same share of unprepared wall (17.1 % against 19.6 %) and the same volume increase, but Ultimate showed the highest transportation of five systems at the 6 mm level of the mesial canals (PMID 41964818). In 150 roots assessed by CBCT, with Ultimate stopped at F1 to match diameters, wear was similar, transportation stayed under 0.3 mm for both, Ultimate tended to transport toward the inner curve at 3 mm in moderately curved canals while Next tended outward, and Ultimate centred better than Next at 3 mm and 5 mm in severe curvatures (PMID 41744930). Cyclic fatigue results point in opposite directions. At room temperature in a 60-degree canal with a 3.5 mm radius, Next X2 lasted 403 cycles against 294 for Ultimate F2, both at their own settings (PMID 35912033). At 35 °C in a 60-degree canal with a 5 mm radius, Ultimate F2 reached 727 cycles against 469 for Next X2 (PMID 41964818). The temperature, the radius and the year of manufacture all differ between the two series, so neither result overrides the other. Torsion and bending are more consistent. At the ISO test point 3 mm from the tip, Next X2 broke at a higher maximum torque (1.81 Ncm against 1.45 Ncm) while Ultimate F2 twisted further before fracture (399 degrees against 282), and Ultimate F2 needed the highest bending torque of five systems in a 60-degree deflection (PMID 41964818). Measured at 6 mm instead, Ultimate F2 broke at the higher torque (2.66 against 2.40 Ncm), twisted further (505 against 255 degrees) and survived more torsional cycles at 90 % of its ultimate strength at both 22 °C and 37 °C; Next's torsional fatigue life rose at body temperature while Ultimate's did not change (PMID 41826551). In a six-system bench series at room temperature, Ultimate F2 required among the lowest bending loads and Next among the highest, Next showed the smallest angle of rotation, and Next's M-Wire was harder (425 HVN) than Ultimate's Gold and Blue wires; Ultimate was fully R-phase at 20 °C and mixed at body temperature, Next mixed at both (PMID 40141543). In retreatment of 80 single-rooted premolars filled with AH Plus and gutta-percha, Next and Ultimate left the same amount of filling behind whether or not retreatment files came first and whatever the access design; no group removed everything, and residues ranged from 12 % to 30 % (PMID 39768860). ## Head to head | Axis | ProTaper Next | ProTaper Ultimate | What the studies show | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Cyclic fatigue (bench) | Longer life at room temperature in a 3.5 mm-radius canal (403 vs 294 cycles) | Longer life at 35 °C in a 5 mm-radius canal (727 vs 469 cycles) | Two series, 25-tip finishing files, opposite rankings under different temperature and radius (PMID 35912033, PMID 41964818) | | Torsion | Higher maximum torque at 3 mm (1.81 Ncm); lower at 6 mm (2.40 Ncm); smaller twist angle in both | Lower maximum torque at 3 mm (1.45 Ncm); higher at 6 mm (2.66 Ncm); larger twist angle and more torsional-fatigue cycles | Fracture level changes the ranking; torsional fatigue measured at 90 % of ultimate strength, 22 °C and 37 °C (PMID 41964818, PMID 41826551) | | Transportation and centring | Same unprepared wall share as Ultimate in molars; outward tendency at 3 mm in moderate curves; lower apical centring in severe curves | Highest transportation of five systems at 6 mm in molar mesial canals; inward tendency at 3 mm; better apical centring in severe curves | Molar micro-CT (PMID 41964818) and CBCT of 150 roots with Ultimate stopped at F1, where no group reached 0.3 mm (PMID 41744930); molar mid-root means exceeded 0.3 mm for both systems | | Dentin removal and clinical outcome | Larger volume increase in premolars; same bacterial reduction as Ultimate in the trial | Smaller volume increase and smaller coronal uninstrumented area in premolars; same bacterial reduction | Premolar micro-CT with different glide-path handling between groups (PMID 40546860); RCT n = 28 (PMID 41169779) | ## Frequently asked 01 Is ProTaper Ultimate more fatigue resistant than ProTaper Next? Answer It depends on the test. - 01 At room temperature in a tight-radius steel canal Next X2 outlasted Ultimate F2 (PMID 35912033); at 35 °C in a wider-radius canal Ultimate F2 outlasted Next X2 (PMID 41964818). - 02 For repeated torsional loading, Ultimate F2 survived more cycles at both temperatures (PMID 41826551). - 03 No single number settles the pair. 02 Which is more flexible? Answer In a six-system bench comparison the Ultimate F2 needed one of the lowest bending loads while Next X2 sat among the stiffer files (PMID 40141543). - 01 In a different five-system series Ultimate F2 needed the highest bending torque for a 60-degree deflection (PMID 41964818). - 02 The two methods load the file differently, so the site does not rank the pair on flexibility. 03 Do they shape the canal differently? Answer In premolars Ultimate removed less dentin and left a smaller uninstrumented area coronally (PMID 40546860). - 01 In molars the two systems matched on unprepared wall share, with Ultimate transporting more at one mid-root level (PMID 41964818). - 02 In severely curved roots assessed by CBCT, Ultimate F1 centred better than Next X2 apically (PMID 41744930). 04 What are the motor settings side by side? Answer ProTaper Next runs at 300 rpm with torque set by file, between 2 and 4 Ncm in its DFU. - 01 ProTaper Ultimate runs at 400 rpm and 4. - 02 0 to 5. - 03 2 Ncm across the sequence. - 04 The full protocol pages list both. 05 Which is better for retreatment? Answer Neither, on the one study read: Next and Ultimate left the same residue in single-rooted premolars filled with AH Plus, with or without dedicated retreatment files first (PMID 39768860). ## References 1. Kumari S, Chidanandappa RN, Thakur S, et al. Randomized clinical trial comparing bacterial reduction in primarily infected root canals using ProTaper Ultimate and ProTaper Next systems. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41169779/) 2. Gandhi PJ, Jobanputra LH, Prajapati MH, et al. Exploration of uninstrumented areas and volumetric precision of ProTaper Ultimate versus ProTaper Next file systems: a micro-computed tomography study. J Conserv Dent Endod. 2025. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40546860/) 3. Rodrigues JV, Godoi-Lopes J, Prado HS, et al. Mechanical properties and micro-CT-based biomechanical performance of NiTi instrumentation systems in mandibular molars. Odontology. 2026. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41964818/) 4. Paulo S, Zagalo P, Louro B, et al. Comparative analysis of rotary systems in curved root canals: evaluation of wear, transportation, and centering capacity. Dent J (Basel). 2026. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41744930/) 5. Rubio J, Zarzosa JI, Aranda S, et al. A comparative study of cyclic fatigue of 6 endodontic systems: an in vitro study. J Clin Exp Dent. 2022. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35912033/) 6. Ohri K, Chien PY, Peters OA. Stress-controlled torsional fatigue assessment of selected contemporary endodontic instruments. Clin Oral Investig. 2026. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41826551/) 7. Martins JNR, Silva EJNL, Vieira VTL, et al. A comparative analysis of ProTaper Ultimate and five multifile systems: design, metallurgy, and mechanical performance. Materials (Basel). 2025. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40141543/) 8. Odabaşı Tezer E, Kırmızı D, Abduljalil M, et al. Comparative retreatment efficacy of two multi-file systems with different access cavity designs: a micro-computed tomography study. Medicina (Kaunas). 2024. [PubMed](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39768860/) ## Specifications | — | ProTaper Next | ProTaper Ultimate | | --- | --- | --- | | Manufacturer | Dentsply Sirona | Dentsply Sirona | | Alloy | M-Wire NiTi | M-Wire / Gold / Blue Heat-Treated NiTi | | Heat Treatment | M-Wire | Gold Heat-Treated | | Motion | Continuous Rotation | Continuous Rotation | | Files | 6 | 8 | | Taper | Variable | Variable | | Cross-section | Not specified by manufacturer, Off-centered rectangular | Parallelogram (variable acute angles, off-centered) | | Speed | 300 RPM | 400 RPM | | Torque | 2–3 Ncm | 4 Ncm | | Use Type | Single-use | Single-use | ## Best For ProTaper Next off-centered swaggering motion reduced file engagement progressive shaping ProTaper Ultimate 5th generation ProTaper evolution K-file free workflow complex anatomy with manual fallback for severe curves ## Key Features ProTaper Next Off-centered rectangular cross-section creates swaggering motion for improved debris removal ProTaper Ultimate Slider-Shaper-Finishers concept with dual heat treatments: Gold for standard sequence, Blue for auxiliary finishers in large canals [ProTaper Next Full protocol](https://endo-guide.app/system/protaper-next)[ProTaper Ultimate Full protocol](https://endo-guide.app/system/protaper-ultimate) ## Related Clinical Links Manufacturer pages [Dentsply Sirona Systems](https://endo-guide.app/manufacturer/dentsply-sirona) Motion categories [Continuous Rotation](https://endo-guide.app/category/continuous-rotation) Related comparisons [ProTaper Next vs ProTaper Gold](https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-gold-vs-protaper-next)[ProTaper Next vs TruNatomy](https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-next-vs-trunatomy)[ProTaper Next vs Vortex Blue](https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-next-vs-vortex-blue)[ProTaper Ultimate vs ProTaper Gold](https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-gold-vs-protaper-ultimate)[ProTaper Ultimate vs TruNatomy](https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-ultimate-vs-trunatomy)[ProTaper Ultimate vs WaveOne Gold](https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-ultimate-vs-waveone-gold) Independent educational reference. Always consult official manufacturer Instructions for Use (DFU) before clinical procedures. [Found an error? Let us know](https://ig.me/m/endoleventyuksel) ![Uzm. Dt. Levent Yüksel](https://endo-guide.app/images/levent-yuksel.jpg) Reviewed by Uzm. Dt. Levent Yüksel DDS · Endodontist Endodontist — DDS, Hacettepe University; endodontics specialty training, Ankara University. 10+ years of clinical experience. Sole author and reviewer of EndoGuide content. [About the author](https://endo-guide.app/about)[Editorial policy](https://endo-guide.app/editorial-policy)[Clinical profile](https://drleventyuksel.com/) Powered by:[Uzm. Dt. Levent Yüksel](https://www.instagram.com/endoleventyuksel/) [@endoguideapp](https://www.instagram.com/endoguideapp/) Independent educational resource. Product names and trademarks belong to their respective manufacturers, who neither sponsor nor endorse EndoGuide. --- Canonical HTML: https://endo-guide.app/compare/protaper-next-vs-protaper-ultimate · Agent guide: https://endo-guide.app/llms.txt