Volume 2, Issue 4 (10-2017)
J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2017, 2(4): 33-43 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Roghanizad N, Vatanpour M, Moradi Eslami L, Bahrami H. Comparison of WaveOne and ProTaper Universal Preparation Systems in the Amount of Smear Layer/Debris Production: an in-vitro SEM Study. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci 2017; 2 (4) :33-43
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-181-en.html
URL: http://jrdms.dentaliau.ac.ir/article-1-181-en.html
1- Assistant professor, Endodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran,
2- Assistant Professor, Endodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran,
3- Postgraduate Student, Endodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran, , leila.m.eslami@gmail.com
4- Dentist
2- Assistant Professor, Endodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran,
3- Postgraduate Student, Endodontics Dept, Dental Branch of Tehran, , leila.m.eslami@gmail.com
4- Dentist
Abstract: (4263 Views)
Background and Aim: Debris and the smear layer that remain after root canal preparations may result in failure of root canal therapies. The aim of this study was to compare the smear layer formation and the amount of residual debris following the use of WaveOne and ProTaper rotary files in mesiobuccal root canals of upper first molars by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 34 mesiobuccal root canals of human maxillary first molars with 20°-40° curvatures (according to Schneider technique) were randomly distributed in two experimental groups (15 each) and two control groups. The canals in test groups were instrumented according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Five ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and 5 ml of normal saline were used as irrigants. The roots were split longitudinally, and apical, middle, and coronal radicular sections were randomly scanned by an SEM at ×1000 magnification. Two endodontists scored the data according to Schäfer and Schlingemann scoring system. Data of the amount of debris and smear layer were separately analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: Although there was a slight difference in mean scores between the two groups (3.28 for WaveOne and 3.6 for ProTaper), no significant differences in debris amount were noted. The overall mean smear layer formation was not significantly different between the two groups (4.11 for WaveOne and 3.95 for ProTaper).
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in remaining debris and smear layer in coronal, middle, and apical parts of root canals. However, ProTaper system appeared to produce less debris during preparation.
Materials and Methods: In this experimental study, 34 mesiobuccal root canals of human maxillary first molars with 20°-40° curvatures (according to Schneider technique) were randomly distributed in two experimental groups (15 each) and two control groups. The canals in test groups were instrumented according to the manufacturers’ instructions. Five ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and 5 ml of normal saline were used as irrigants. The roots were split longitudinally, and apical, middle, and coronal radicular sections were randomly scanned by an SEM at ×1000 magnification. Two endodontists scored the data according to Schäfer and Schlingemann scoring system. Data of the amount of debris and smear layer were separately analyzed by Kruskal-Wallis test.
Results: Although there was a slight difference in mean scores between the two groups (3.28 for WaveOne and 3.6 for ProTaper), no significant differences in debris amount were noted. The overall mean smear layer formation was not significantly different between the two groups (4.11 for WaveOne and 3.95 for ProTaper).
Conclusion: There was no significant difference in remaining debris and smear layer in coronal, middle, and apical parts of root canals. However, ProTaper system appeared to produce less debris during preparation.
Type of Study: Original article |
Subject:
Oral & maxillofacial surgery
References
1. Mccomb D, Smith Dc. A preliminary scanning electron microscopy study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod. 1975 Jul;1(7):238-42.
2. Uitto VJ, Haapasalo M, Laakso T, Salo T. Degradation of basement membrane collagen by proteases from some anaerobic oral microorganisms. Oral microbiology and Immunology 1988;3(3):97-102.
3. Clark-Holke D, Drake D, Walton R, Rivera E, Guthmiller JM. Bacterial penetration through canals of endodontically treated teeth in the presence or absence of the smear layer. J Dent. 2003 May;31(4):275-81.
4. Qrstavik D, Haapasalo M. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressing of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol. 1990 Aug;6(4):142-9.
5. Nazari Moghadam K, Mehran M, Farajian Zadeh H.Root Canal Cleaning Efficacy of Rotary and Hand Files Instrumentation in Primary Molars.Iran Endod J 2009;4(2):53-57
6. Jeon IS, Spångberg LS, Yoon TC, Kazemi RB, Kum KY. Smear layer production by 3 rotary reamers with different cutting blade designs in straight root canals: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003 Nov;96(5):601-7.
7. Jeon HJ, Paranjpe A, Ha JH, Kim E, Lee W, Kim HC. Apical enlargement according to different pecking times at working length using reciprocating files. J Endod 2014 Feb; 40(2):281-4.
8. Yared G. Canal preparation using only one Ni-Ti rotary instrument: preliminary observations. Int Endod J. 2008 Apr;41(4):339-44.
9. Park HJ, Seo MS, Moon YM. Root canal volume change and transportation by Vortex Blue, ProTaper Next, and ProTaper Universal in curved root canals. Restor Dent Endod. 2017 Dec 24;43(1):e3.
10. De-Deus G, Moreira EJ, Lopes HP, Elias CN. Extended cyclic fatigue life of F2 ProTaper instruments used in reciprocating movement. Int Endod J. 2010 Dec;43(12):1063-8.
11. Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Claridge E, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Williams RL,et al. An analytical Micro CT methodology for quantifying inorganic dentine debris following internal tooth preparation. J Dent. 2012 Nov;40(11):999-1005.
12. Khalap ND, Kokate S, Hegde V. Ultrasonic versus sonic activation of the final irrigant in root canals instrumented with rotary/reciprocating files: An in-vitro scanning electron microscopy analysis. J Conserv Dent. 2016 Jul-Aug;19(4):368-72.
13. Schäfer E, Schlingemann R. Efficiency of rotary nickel-titanium K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2003 Mar;36(3):208-17.
14. Berutti E, Chiandussi G, Paolino DS, Scotti N, Cantatore G, Castellucci A,et al. Effect of canal length and curvature on working length alteration with WaveOne reciprocating files. J Endod. 2011 Dec;37(12):1687-90.
15. Balani P, Niazi F, Rashid H. A brief review of the methods used to determine the curvature of root canals. J Res Dent 2015;3(3):57-63.
16. Kokkas AB, Boutsioukis ACh, Vassiliadis LP, Stavrianos CK. The influence of the smear layer on dentinal tubule penetration depth by three different root canal sealers: an in vitro study. J Endod. 2004 Feb;30(2):100-2.
17. Cobankara FK, Adanr N, Belli S. Evaluation of the influence of smear layer on the apical and coronal sealing ability of two sealers. J Endod. 2004 Jun;30(6):406-9.
18. Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K,et al. A new solution of the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2003Mar;29(3):170-5.
19. Guivarc'h M, Ordioni U, Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Catherine JH, Bukiet F. Sodium Hypochlorite Accident: A Systematic Review. J Endod. 2017 Jan;43(1):16-24.
20. Czonstkowsky M, Wilson EG, Holstein FA. The smear layer in endodontics Dent Clin North Am. 1990 Jan;34(1):13-25.
21. Amaral P, Forner L, Llena C. Smear layer removal in canals shaped with reciprocating rotary systems. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013 Dec 1;5(5):e227-30.
22. Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Beltrami R, Colombo M. Effect of NiTi rotary and reciprocating instruments on debri and smear layer scores. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014 Dec 30;12(3):256-62.
23. Burklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schafer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):449-61.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
