A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO 642 and Quantec SC rotary Ni–Ti instruments

Abstract

Aim The purpose of this study was to compare several parameters of root canal preparation using two different rotary nickel–titanium instruments: HERO 642 (Micro‐Mega, Besancon, France) and Quantec SC (Tycom, Irvine, CA, USA). Methodology Fifty extracted mandibular molars with root canal curvatures between 20° and 40° were imbedded into a muffle system. All root canals were prepared to size 45 (Quantec SC), or 40 (HERO 642), respectively. The following parameters were evaluated: straightening of curved root canals, postoperative root canal diameter, safety issues (file fractures, perforations, apical blockages, loss of working length), cleaning ability, and working time. Results Both Ni–Ti‐systems maintained curvature well; the mean degree of straightening was 2.3° for Quantec SC and 1.6° for HERO 642. Most procedural incidents occurred with Quantec SC instruments (five fractures, three apical blockages, eight cases of loss of working length), HERO 642 preparation resulted in three blockages and one perforation. Following preparation with HERO 642, 63% of the root canals showed a round, 24% an oval, and 17% an irregular diameter; Quantec SC preparations resulted in a round diameter in 24% of the cases, oval shape in 29%, and irregular cross‐section in 47% of the cases. Mean working time was shorter for HERO 642 (52 s) than for Quantec (117 s). Cleanliness of the root canal walls was investigated under the SEM using a five‐score system for debris and smear layer. For debris HERO 642 achieved better results (80% scores 1 and 2) than Quantec SC (76%). The results for smear layer were similar: cleaner root canal walls were found after preparation with HERO 642 (53% scores 1 and 2), followed by Quantec SC (41%). Conclusions Both systems respected original root canal curvature well and showed good cleaning ability; Quantec SC showed deficiencies in terms of safety.