Comparison of two rotary systems in bacteria/lps removal from endodontic infections: randomized clinical trial

Abstract

Caroline LOUREIRO (a) Frederico Canato MARTINHO (b) Luciano Tavares Ângelo CINTRA (a) Eloi DEZAN JUNIOR (a) Rogério de Castilho JACINTO (a)

Endodontic Rotary Systems: Comparison between Gentlefile and Pro Taper Universal for removal of Enterococcus faecalis

“…(2016) stated that the ultra-flexibility of the instruments could influence the bacterial reduction because of their cutting power which deforms easily in the root canal walls against slight pressure ( 17 ). Gentlefile system, as an ultra-flexible instrument, exhibited higher smear layer and less remaining debris that helps with reaching better cleaning efficacy and decreased reinfection risk ( 18 ). Also, these instruments cannot cut into the dentin but rather abrade the root canal dentin walls compared to Pro Taper Universal system ( 9 ).…”

Centric versus eccentric engine‐driven endodontic instrument design for microbial load reduction—A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomised clinical trials

“…Further analysis revealed that 23 studies were excluded since 7 were laboratorybased studies [12,[20][21][22][23][24][25], 2 studies assessed on postoperative pain reduction [26,27], 9 studies were clinical trials assessing similar instrument design or hand instrumentation [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35], 2 studies on self-adjusting file (ReDent-Nova, Ra′anana, Israel) (SAF) since these instruments could not be classified as eccentric or centric design [21,36], 1 study evaluated an irrigation protocol [37], 1 study on root canal preparation analysis [38], 1 clinical trial on periapical healing [39]. Finally, 5 studies were included for this systematic review [40][41][42][43][44].…”

“…The included studies were published in English language in tier 1 dental domain-based journals such as International Endodontic Journal [43,44], Journal of Endodontics [42], British Dental Journal [41] and 1 paper in tier 2 dental domain-based journal, Brazilian Oral Research [40]. The origin of the included studies was as follows: one from India [41], one from Brazil [40], one from Australia [42] and two from Egypt [43,44]. All the included studies were carried out in a university-based clinical setting.…”

“…The type of teeth included varied among the studies [40][41][42][43][44]. Single-rooted teeth were the most common type with two studies conducting exclusively on mandibular premolars [43,44], but their morphology varied, with some studies reporting only on oval canals [42,43] and other studies not reporting the canal anatomy in further detail [41,44].…”

“…Single-rooted teeth were the most common type with two studies conducting exclusively on mandibular premolars [43,44], but their morphology varied, with some studies reporting only on oval canals [42,43] and other studies not reporting the canal anatomy in further detail [41,44]. One study [40], used exclusively multirooted teeth. Most of the studies included samples diagnosed with primary endodontic infection [40][41][42] and only one study considered samples diagnosed with necrotic pulp with or without periapical radiolucency [43].…”