@Ben.Friberg: Because different size diameters put more or less torque pressure on the file. The toughest situation is a short radius curvature on a narrow canals. Wide canals can be instrumented with less torque, which is why we can do step back rather than crown down in those canals. Where canals are narrow you may decide to sacrifice efficiency for safety. This is why you make a file selection based on the specific requirements of the canal you’re dealing with. In the EndoSequence Blend Protocol I’ve accounted for these requirements and that’s why this protocol is universally robust. Cheers.

@Jason Wu:
Jason, the Blend Protocol can be used with either ESX or EndoSequence files. The advantage of ESX Is that they come pre-sterilized and don’t need to be sterile and they have the booster tip, which is an advantage; however, they are a little more expensive than regular EndoSequence files and that’s why we discuss the technique with either EndoSequence or ESX to give people an option. The 15/05 can be used to measure length on EndoSynchPlus; but the Blend protocol is not using it and is using a hand file to measure length; once again, to curtail cost. I’m trying to come up with protocols that are predictable; versatile, and cost less.. that’s part of the reason you see multiple ways to skin the cat here! 🙂
THanks for the comment.
Ali