Aim: To compare the shaping ability of ProTaper with Reamer with Alternating Cutting Edges (RaCe) instruments. Part 1 of this two-part report describes the efficacy of these two nickel-titanium instruments in simulated curved root canals.
Methodology: Simulated canals with 28 degrees and 35 degrees curves in resin blocks were prepared with ProTaper and RaCe instruments using a crown-down preparation technique (n = 24 canals in each case). Pre- and postinstrumentation images were recorded, and assessment of canal shape was completed with a computer image analysis program. Material removal was measured at 20 measuring points, beginning 1 mm from the apex. Incidence of canal aberrations, preparation time, changes of working length and instrument failures were also recorded. The data were analysed statistically using the Mann-Whitney U-test or the chi-square test.
Results: On average, canals prepared with RaCe instruments remained better centred compared with those enlarged with ProTaper files. Three RaCe instruments and two ProTaper files fractured during preparation (P > 0.05). Between both the canal types, RaCe was significantly faster (P < 0.001) than ProTaper and maintained working length significantly better (P < 0.05).
Conclusion: Both instruments prepared curved canals rapidly and were relatively safe. RaCe respected original canal curvature better than ProTaper, which tended to transport towards the outer aspect of the curve.