Article Options


Advanced Search

This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License

Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 1  »  A comparative study of root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and Lightspeed rotary Ni–Ti instruments
A comparative study of root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and Lightspeed rotary Ni–Ti instruments

Distribution of preoperative root canal curvatures.
The mean preoperative root canal curvature in the teeth of the Profile .04 group was 27.8 and in the Lightspeed group 28.4 .

Due to three instrument fractures during preparation of the unsectioned roots, the number of specimens in this Profile .04 group was only 22. The mean straightening after preparation to size 45 in the Profile .04 group was 0.2 in the unsectioned and 0.3 in the sectioned roots (SD: 0–5 ), in the Lightspeed group the mean straightening was 0.4 in the unsectioned and 0.2 in the sectioned roots (SD: 0–3 ). The difference was not statistically significant (Table 1).

The results concerning postoperative cross sections of the root canals are summarized in Table 2. Lightspeed produced slightly more irregular cross-sections in all parts of the root canal. Following the use of both Ni–Ti systems, the root canals in the majority of the cases showed round or oval root canal cross-sections and were rated acceptable. No statistically significant difference between the two systems occurred.

Evaluation of root canal straightening
Table 1. Evaluation of root canal straightening.

Evaluation of postoperative cross-section
Table 2. Evaluation of postoperative cross-section.

Contact between pre- and postoperative cross-section
Table 3. Contact between pre- and postoperative cross-section.

Assessment of root canal cleanliness
Table 4. Assessment of root canal cleanliness.

Superimposition of photographs of the cross-sections of the pre- and postoperative root canals showed that both systems left uninstrumented canal walls in many cases. Overall, 40 Lightspeed and 30 Profile .04 specimens out of 75 showed no contact between the pre- and postoperative root canal outlines, indicating sufficient circumferential instrumentation of the root canal wall. Following preparation with Lightspeed instruments, all parts of the root canals showed less uninstrumented root canal walls than following preparation with ProFile instruments. Lightspeed instruments enlarged the root canal more uniformly with no specimen showing 50% or more contact between pre- and postoperative diameter (Table 3). The difference was statistically significant for the coronal third of the root canals ( P = 0.032) with the Lightspeed system showing a superior performance. For the apical and the middle third no significant differences occurred.

Root canal cleanliness.
Due to three instrument fractures, the number of specimens for the Profile .04 group was only 66 compared to 75 in the Lightspeed group. The results of the SEM analysis of the root canal walls concerning residual debris and smear layer are detailed in Table 4. Generally, the root canals showed no homogeneous appearance with only few specimens (Lightspeed: 14.7%, Profile .04: 13.6%) with completely clean walls without any remaining debris (score 1) and a high number of scores 2 and 3 for both systems (Lightspeed: 80%, Profile .04 71.2%). Differences between the systems were not significant.
For smear layer Lightspeed preparation resulted in 65.3%, ProFile in 62.1% scored 2 and 3. No statistically significant differences occurred for the apical and middle thirds of the root canals. For the coronal region, Lightspeed cleaned significantly better ( P = 0.029).

Procedural errors.
Lightspeed preparation proved to be a safe technique with no instrument fracture, no perforation, no apical blockage, and no case of loss of working length. With the Profile .04 system three instrument fractures (one fracture with size 40, two fractures with size 35 instruments) occurred, but no perforation, no apical blockage, and no cases with loss of working length.

Working time.
Working time, not including time for instrument changes and irrigation, measured during preparation of the unsectioned roots, resulted in a median of 123.4 s for Lightspeed instrumentation (20 instruments), and 94.3 s for the Profile .04 system (10 instruments). The difference was statistically significant ( P = 0.026). The working time for each single instrument was shorter for Lightspeed than for ProFile. Including time for root canal irrigation, Lightspeed preparation resulted in a working time of 270.9 s (median) and Profile .04 instrumentation in a median working time of 190.1 s.