Comparative study of six rotary nickel-titanium systems and hand instrumentation for root canal preparation.

AIM To compare ex vivo various parameters of root canal preparation using a manual technique and six different rotary nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments (FlexMaster, System GT, HERO 642, K3, ProTaper, and RaCe). METHODOLOGY A total of 147 extracted mandibular molars were divided into seven groups (n = 21) with equal mean mesio-buccal root canal curvatures (up to 70 degrees), and embedded in a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 30 using a crown-down preparation technique for the rotary nickel-titanium instruments and a standardized preparation (using reamers and Hedströem files) for the manual technique. Length modifications and straightening were determined by standardized radiography and a computer-aided difference measurement for every instrument system. Post-operative cross-sections were evaluated by light-microscopic investigation and photographic documentation. Procedural errors, working time and time for instrumentation were recorded. The data were analysed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test and the Mann-Whitney U-test. RESULTS No significant differences were detected between the rotary Ni-Ti instruments for alteration of working length. All Ni-Ti systems maintained the original curvature well, with minor mean degrees of straightening ranging from 0.45 degrees (System GT) to 1.17 degrees (ProTaper). ProTaper had the lowest numbers of irregular post-operative root canal diameters; the results were comparable between the other systems. Instrument fractures occurred with ProTaper in three root canals, whilst preparation with System GT, HERO 642, K3 and the manual technique resulted in one fracture each. Ni-Ti instruments prepared canals more rapidly than the manual technique. The shortest time for instrumentation was achieved with System GT (11.7 s). CONCLUSIONS Under the conditions of this ex vivo study all Ni-Ti systems maintained the canal curvature, were associated with few instrument fractures and were more rapid than a standardized manual technique. ProTaper instruments created more regular canal diameters.