Comparative study of root-canal preparation using Lightspeed and Quantec SC rotary NiTi instruments

AIM: To compare several parameters of root-canal preparation using two different rotary nickel-titanium (NiTi) instruments: Lightspeed (Lightspeed Inc, San Antonio, TX, USA) and Quantec SC (Tycom, Irvine, USA). METHODOLOGY: Fifty extracted mandibular molars with root-canal curvatures between 20 degrees and 40 degrees were embedded into a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 followed by a stepback in 1-mm increments to size 70 (Lightspeed) or 45 (Quantec SC), using a high-torque motor at 1300 or 350 r.p.m. respectively. In both groups, irrigation was performed with 2 mL NaOCl (3%) after each instrument size. RC-Prep (Premier, PA, USA) was used as a chelating agent. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of curved root canals, postoperative root-canal diameter, working safety (instrument fractures, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length (WL)), cleaning ability and working time. Cleanliness of the root-canal walls was investigated under SEM using 5-score indices for debris and smear layer. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon's test (P < 0.05) for straightening and Fisher's exact test (P < 0.05) for comparison of cross-sections, contact between pre- and postoperative diameter, root-canal cleanliness and working time. RESULTS: Both NiTi systems maintained the curvature well: the mean degree of straightening was 1.8 degrees for Lightspeed and 1.7 degrees for Quantec SC; differences were not significant. Procedural incidents occurred with Quantec SC in 12 root canals (three fractures, four apical blockages and five cases of loss of WL), preparation with Lightspeed resulted in five fractures, one apical blockage and five cases of loss of WL (11 incidents). Following preparation with Lightspeed, 55.5% of the root canals had a round diameter, 25% an oval and 19.5% an irregular diameter; Quantec SC preparations resulted in a round diameter in 51.5%, oval shape in 33.3% and irregular cross-sections in 15.2% of the cases. Mean working time was similar for Quantec SC (161 s) and Lightspeed (155 s); the difference was not significant. For debris, Lightspeed and Quantec achieved 64 and 63% for scores 1 and 2, respectively. For smear layer, Lightspeed and Quantec achieved only 13.3 and 27.4% for scores 1 and 2, respectively. Differences were not significant for either debris or smear layer. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems respected original root-canal curvature well and prepared acceptable diameter forms. The cleaning ability was judged not satisfactory for both systems. Both systems showed deficiencies in working safety.