Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments.

AIM

To compare various parameters of root canal preparation using RaCe (FKG Dentaire, La-Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) and ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments.

METHODOLOGY

Fifty extracted mandibular molars with mesial root canal curvatures between 20 degrees and 40 degrees were embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 30 using RaCe or ProTaper rotary instruments in low-torque motors with torque control and constant speed of 300 r.p.m. (ProTaper with ATR Tecnika, Advanced Technology Research, Pistoia, Italy; RaCe with EndoStepper, S.E.T., Olching, Germany). In both groups irrigation was performed with 2 mL NaOCl (3%) after each instrument size. Calcinase-Slide (lege artis, Dettenhausen, Germany) was used as a chelating agent with each instrument. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of curved root canals, postoperative root canal cross-sections, safety issues and working time. Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM using 5-score indices for debris and smear layer. Statistical analysis was performed using the following tests: Wilcoxon's test for straightening and working time was used (P < 0.05); Fisher's exact test for comparison of cross-sections and root canal cleanliness (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Both Ni-Ti systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was less than 1 degrees for both systems. Following preparation with RaCe, 49% of the root canals had a round or oval diameter and 50% an irregular diameter, ProTaper preparations resulted in a round or oval diameter in 50% of the cases. For debris, RaCe and ProTaper achieved 47 and 49% scores of 1 and 2, respectively; there was no significant difference. For smear layer, RaCe and ProTaper achieved 51 and 33% scores 1 and 2, respectively; no statistically significant differences were apparent for the coronal and middle sections of the root canals, but RaCe performed significantly better in the apical region (Fisher's exact test, P = 0.0392). Two roots lost working length with RaCe instruments, whilst ProTaper preparation resulted in two roots loosing working length and one fractured instrument. Mean working time was shorter for ProTaper (90.9 s) than for RaCe (137.6 s); the difference was significant (Wilcoxon's test, P = 0.011).

CONCLUSIONS

Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe to use. Cleanliness was not satisfactory for both systems.