A comparative study of root canal preparation using ProFile .04 and Lightspeed rotary Ni–Ti instruments
Authors: Versümer J. , Hülsmann M. , Schäfers F. 
Published: March 2003

Aim The purpose of this study was to compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary nickel–titanium instruments: ProFile .04 (Dentsply/Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and Lightspeed (Lightspeed Technology Inc., San Antonio, TX, USA).

Methodology Fifty extracted mandibular molars with root canal curvatures between 20° and 40° were divided into two similar groups having equal mean curvatures. The teeth were then embedded into a muffle system as described by Bramante et al. (1987) and modified by Hülsmann et al. (1999b). All root canals were prepared using ProFile .04 or Lightspeed Ni–Ti instruments to size 45 following the manufacturers’ instructions. The Lightspeed system was used in a step‐back technique; ProFile .04 instruments were used in a crown‐down technique. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of curved root canals (superimposition of pre‐ and postoperative radiographs), postoperative root canal diameter (superimposition of pre‐ and postoperative photographs of root canal cross‐sections), safety issues (file fractures, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length) (protocol), cleaning ability (SEM‐evaluation of root canal walls using a five‐score system for debris and smear layer), and working time (protocol).

Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon test (P < 0.05) for straightening, and Fisher’s exact‐test (P < 0.05) for comparison of cross‐sections, for comparison of contact between pre‐ and postoperative diameter, root canal cleanliness and working time.

Results Both Ni–Ti systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was less than 1° for both ProFile .04 and for Lightspeed with no statistical significance between the groups. Most procedural incidents occurred with Profile .04 instruments (three fractures), Lightspeed preparation was completed without instrument fractures. Loss of working length, perforations or apical blockage did not occur with either instrument. Following preparation with Profile .04, 64.0% of the root canals had a round, 30.7% an oval, and 5.3% an irregular cross‐section, Lightspeed preparation resulted in a round cross‐section in 41.3% of cases, an oval shape in 45.3% of cases; 13.3% of cases had an irregular cross‐section. No significant differences were found between the two systems. Lightspeed instruments enlarged the root canal more uniformly with no specimen showing 50% or more contact between pre‐ and postoperative diameter. The difference was statistically significant only for the coronal third of the root canals (P = 0.032). Mean working time was significantly shorter for Profile .04 (105 s) than for Lightspeed (140 s) (P = 0.026). For debris removal Lightspeed achieved the best results (68% scores 1 and 2), followed by Profile .04 (48.4%) with no significant differences between the systems. The results for remaining smear layer were similar: the lowest amount of smear layer on the root canal walls was found after preparation with Lightspeed (30.7% scores 1 and 2), followed by Profile .04 (23.1%). In the coronal third of the root canals Lightspeed performed significantly better than Profile .04 (P = 0.029); in the middle and apical third the differences were not significant.

Conclusions Both systems under investigation respected original root canal curvature and were safe to use. Both systems can be recommended for clinical use.