Aim: To compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary nickel-titanium (Ni-Ti) instruments: FlexMaster (VDW, Munich, Germany) and HERO 642 (Micro-Mega, Besançon, France).
Methodology: Fifty extracted human mandibular molars with root canal curvatures between 20 and 40 degrees were embedded into a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 using a high-torque motor with two different Ni-Ti instruments, FlexMaster and HERO 642. In both groups, irrigation was performed with 2 mL NaOCl (3%) after each instrument size. RC-Prep (Premier, Philadelphia, USA) was used as a chelating agent with each instrument. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of curved root canals, postoperative root canal diameter, working safety (file fractures, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length), cleaning ability and working time. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon's test (P < 0.05) for straightening and Fishers'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 Ni-Ti systems maintained the curvature well: the mean degree of straightening was 0.6 degrees for FlexMaster and 0.5 degrees for HERO 642. One file was fractured with the FlexMaster system, but further procedural incidents were not recorded. Following preparation with FlexMaster, 18% of the root canals had a round diameter, 53% an oval diameter and 29% an irregular diameter; HERO 642 preparations resulted in a round diameter in 25%, oval shape in 47% and irregular cross-sections in 28% of the cases. Mean working time was shorter for HERO 642 (66.0 s) than for FlexMaster (71.1 s). Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM using 5-score indices for debris and smear layer. For debris, HERO 642 and FlexMaster achieved 73 and 70% scores of 1 and 2, respectively. The results for smear layer were similar: HERO 642 and FlexMaster achieved 33 and 26% scores of 1 and 2, respectively. Significant differences between the two systems were not detected for any of the parameters evaluated.
Conclusions: Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and were safe. Both systems failed to remove debris and smear layer in the majority of the cases.