Cleaning efficacy and uncontrolled removal of dentin of two methods of irrigant activation in curved canals connected by an isthmus

Author(s):  
Clarissa Teles Rodrigues ◽  
Mostafa EzEldeen ◽  
Reinhilde Jacobs ◽  
Paul Lambrechts ◽  
Murilo Priori Alcalde ◽  
...  
2016 ◽  
Vol 91 ◽  
pp. 1-8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mauro F. La Russa ◽  
Natalia Rovella ◽  
Monica Alvarez de Buergo ◽  
Cristina M. Belfiore ◽  
Antonino Pezzino ◽  
...  

2009 ◽  
Vol 42 (12) ◽  
pp. 1077-1083 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. D. de Groot ◽  
B. Verhaagen ◽  
M. Versluis ◽  
M.-K. Wu ◽  
P. R. Wesselink ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Deebah Choudhary

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the canal cleaning efficacy of these three file systems using scanning electron microscopy. Place and Duration of Study: The study was conducted in the Department of Conservative dentistry and Endodontics, Institute of Dental Sciences Sehora, between October 2020 and December 2020. Materials and Methods: Access cavity preparation was performed on sixty extracted human mandibular premolar teeth and working length was determined. The samples were randomly divided into three groups (n=20) depending upon the file system used i.e. Group 1 (Reciproc Blue), Group 2 (Waveone Gold) and Group 3 (F360). Samples were split into two halves by creating longitudinal grooves on the buccal and lingual surfaces. The samples were sputter-coated with gold and examined under scanning electron microscope at 5000X. The dentinal wall of root canal at coronal, middle and apical thirds of each sample were evaluated for the presence of determining the canal cleanliness and then analyzed using a five-score index. Results: The results of this study revealed that Group 1 (Reciproc Blue) exhibited better cleaning efficacy than samples of Group 2 (WaveOne Gold) and Group 3 (F360) at different locations in the canal i.e. coronal, middle and apical. The mean debris present was highest in coronal area for both group 2 and group 3 i.e. 2.1 and least was seen in apical area of group 1 i.e. 0.3. (p<0.05) Conclusion: Reciproc Blue single-file showed highest cleaning efficacy followed by Waveone Gold and F360. Reciproc file also showed effective cleaning in the apical third of the canal.


2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (6) ◽  
pp. 1028-1035
Author(s):  
Sangeetha Vallikanthan ◽  
K Balakoti Reddy ◽  
Shreemoy Dash ◽  
Sowmya Kallepalli ◽  
N Chakrapani ◽  
...  

ABSTRACT Objectives The present study was conducted to compare the cleaning efficacy (debris and smear layer removal) of hand and two NiTi rotary instrumentation systems (K3 and ProTaper). Materials and methods Sixty single rooted human maxillary anterior teeth decoronated at the cementoenamel junction were used. All the specimens were divided into four groups of 15 teeth each, group I—ProTaper rotary instrumentation done, group II—K3 rotary instrumentation done, group III—Stainless steel K-file instrumentation done, group IV—root canal irrigation without instrumentation. Root canal preparation was done in a crown down manner and 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigant after each file followed by final rinse with 5 ml of 17% EDTA solution, then specimens were scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination. Results Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD test. Group I showed highly statistical significant difference compared to other groups. There was no statistically significant difference considering smear layer at any levels among the groups with no smear layer formation in group IV. Conclusion ProTaper rotary instrumentation showed the maximum cleaning efficacy followed by K3 rotary instrumentation in the coronal, middle and apical thirds of the root canal. Clinical significance ProTaper rotary instruments are more efficient than hand and K3 rotary instruments during root canal treatment. How to cite this article Reddy KB, Dash S, Kallepalli S, Vallikanthan S, Chakrapani N, Kalepu V. A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1028-1035.


2012 ◽  
Vol 38 (6) ◽  
pp. 838-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lei-Meng Jiang ◽  
Bram Lak ◽  
Leonardus M. Eijsvogels ◽  
Paul Wesselink ◽  
Lucas W.M. van der Sluis
Keyword(s):  

2008 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Schatzle ◽  
T. Imfeld ◽  
B. Sener ◽  
P. R. Schmidlin

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document