Comparative evaluation of canal cleaning ability of various rotary endodontic filesin apical third: A scanning electron microscopic study

Jadhav, Ganesh Ranganath; Mittal, Priya; Kulkarni, Anish; Syed, Shibli; Bagul, Ravikiran; Elahi, Saina; Kalra, Dheeraj

doi:10.4103/1735-3327.197031

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 26 publications

(27 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With all four file systems, partially uninstrumented areas with remaining debris were found in all canal sections. This finding has also been described by others (5,19,22,23). In the present study, completely cleaned root canals were not found in any group.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Here, two reciprocal files were compared with traditionally used rotary systems (that is ProTaper file) for their canal cleaning ability and reciprocal instruments better than rotational systems for debris and smear removal. In the present study our ProTaper universal and Protaper next results similar the Jadhav's research (23).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

“…However, difference between Protaper and Protaper next was not statistically significant. Jadhav et al showed the same result in their study (23). In the present study, WaveOne and Reciproc groups showed better result than ProTaper groups.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

“…SEM is a valuable method to assess the cleaning effects because of allowing evaluations of the entire section of both halves of the canal on the basis of a separate numeric evaluation scheme for debris and smear layer (23). In the present study, the cleaning efficiency was analyzed by means of an SEM-evaluation of the coronal, the middle and the apical parts of the canals (22).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Debris and smear layer have been used as criteria in this study to evaluate the cleaning ability of the different instruments because debris includes dentine chips, residual vital or necrotic pulp tissue attached to the root canal wall that is thought to be infected in many cases (22). Debris and smear layer lead to following difficulties during endodontic treatment an unpredictable thickness and volume due to greater water portion limits its removal and optimum penetration of disinfectant and obturated material its loosely adherent nature is a potential avenue for leakage (23). Debris and smear layer removal depends not only the irrigation method but also on the design of endodontic instrument (size, taper, cross-section, etc), the way instrument is used (rotational or reciprocal) and the method of preparation (step back or crowndown) (10,24).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Root canal cleaning with different reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems

Yusufoğlu

Aydinbelge

2019

Int Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: The purpose of the present study was to compare the cleaning effectiveness of two reciprocating single-file systems with ProTaper Next and ProTaper Universal rotary instruments during the preparation of single-rooted extracted teeth. Methodology: Sixty freshly extracted single-rooted human teeth were randomly divided into 4 groups (n=15). In group 1, root canals were prepared with ProTaper Universal, in group 2, they were prepared with ProTaper Next, in group 3, they were prepared with WaveOne and in group 4, root canals prepared with Reciproc systems. Canals were prepared to the following apical sizes: ProTaper Universal F3, ProTaper Next X3, WaveOne Primary and Reciproc 25. The irrigant in all groups was 2ml 2.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution, the final irrigation after preparation all groups was 2ml NaOCl, 2ml EDTA and 2ml saline solution. The roots were split longitudinally into halves and the canals examined using a scanning electron microscope. The presence of a debris and smear layer was recorded at the coronal, middle and the apical thirds of root canals using a five-step scoring scale. Data were statistically analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: All groups showed more efficient smear layer and debris removal coronally than in the middle and apical regions, whereas the mean total debris score and the mean smear layer score in all groups were less in the WaveOne and the Reciproc groups. Conclusions: Under the conditions of this study, for root canal cleanliness Reciproc and WaveOne may be preferred rather than ProTaperUniversal and ProTaperNext. How to cite this article: İnce Yusufoğlu S, Arı Aydınbelge H. Root canal cleaning with different reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems. Int Dent Res 2019;9(1):1-8. Linguistic Revision: The English in this manuscript has been checked by at least two professional editors, both native speakers of English.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 89%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Root canal cleaning with different reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems

Yusufoğlu

Aydinbelge

2019

Int Dent Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer generated by rotary instrumentation techniques: An in-vitro study

Ul-Haq

Rao²,

T³

et al. 2022

JDP

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To evaluate the Smear layer generated by three rotary instrumentation techniques Thirty single-rooted freshly extracted teeth were selected for this study, teeth were decoronated at the level of CEJ (Cemento enamel junction) and were divided into three groups for cleaning and shaping of root canals, group I (protaper gold) group II (M two) group III (Hyflex EDM) After splitting the roots longitudinally, the Smear layer generated by each instrument for each root canal was evaluated using a scanning electron microscope and the data obtained was statistically analyzed using Kruskal Wallis and Mann-Whitney U test. Instrumentation with Protaper gold (Group 1) showed the maximum amount of Smear layer generation followed by Hyflex EDM (Group 3) files and VDW Mtwo (Group 2) showed the least values of Smear layer generation. Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that Mtwo (group 2) showed better results in removing the Smear layer than Protaper gold and Hyflex EDM file systems.

show abstract

Debridement Ability of TruNatomy, S-One Plus, and Other Single File Systems

Waleed

Selivany

2022

Open Access Maced J Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND: Rotary nickel titanium instrument are an essential part of endodontic treatment, it is important to compare the root canal cleaning ability of these instruments. AIM: This study aimed to compare the amount of smear and debris layer remained following the use of four rotary instruments with an irrigant solution: TruNatomy (TRN), Protaper Next (PTN), S-One Plus and Wave One Gold (WOG). METHODS: A total of 80 extracted mandibular premolars were used and decoronated to the cemento-enamel junction. The roots were randomly divided into four groups of 20 specimens each. The roots were instrumented according to the manufacturer’s instructions of each file, the root canals were irrigated with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), Ethylene-diaminete-traacetic acid (EDTA) and Normal saline with each file use, two grooves were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces by disc to facilitate vertical splitting with a chisel. The presence of the smear layer and the debris layer were evaluated under Scanning Electron Microscope. RESULTS: Trunatomy remove the smear layer substantially better than PTN and S-one Plus. Wave one gold significantly removes smear layer better PTN. The amount of debris remained in TruNatomy group was significantly lower than other groups, all experimental files significantly removes the smear layer and debris layer better in the middle and coronal thirds compared to apical third. CONCLUSION: TruNatomy showed better cleaning capacity than all other experimental groups and all experimental groups demonstrated better cleanliness at the coronal and middle third of the roots.

show abstract

Comparative evaluation of canal cleaning ability of various rotary endodontic filesin apical third: A scanning electron microscopic study

Cited by 3 publications

References 26 publications

Root canal cleaning with different reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems

Root canal cleaning with different reciprocating and rotary instrumentation systems

Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer generated by rotary instrumentation techniques: An in-vitro study

Debridement Ability of TruNatomy, S-One Plus, and Other Single File Systems

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About