Cargando…

Efficacy of Different Techniques for Removing Debris from Endodontic Files Prior to Sterilization

BACKGROUND: Dental instruments, like endodontic files, are hardly disinfected. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mechanical, chemical, and ultrasonic (in combinations or separately) techniques for removing debris from files, prior to sterilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Totally,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nosouhian, Saeid, Bajoghli, Farshad, Sabouhi, Mahmoud, Barati, Masoud, Davoudi, Amin, Sharifipour, Maryam
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Dentmedpub Research and Printing Co 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4588788/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26464538
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Dental instruments, like endodontic files, are hardly disinfected. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mechanical, chemical, and ultrasonic (in combinations or separately) techniques for removing debris from files, prior to sterilization. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Totally, 90 new endodontic files with size of 15, 25, and 40 (30 files of each one) were sterilized and one files of each one kept as negative control (NC) group. The rest of files (29 files of each size) were divided into five groups after endodontic therapies and prior to autoclaving: (Positive control [PC]: Without interventions, A: Cleaned with scouring sponge soaked in chlorhexidine 0.2%, B: Stored in Micro 10 enzyme, C: Subjected to Micro 10 enzyme in both conventional and ultrasonic way for 15 min, D: Decontaminated by Micro 10 enzyme with ultrasonic). Finally, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope, and the data were analyzed by Tuckey, paired t-test, two-way ANOVA tests using SPSS software version 15 at a significant level of 0.05. RESULTS: Significant differences were observed in heads of the files among groups C and PC (P = 0.02), and high amount of debris were seen in the shafts of groups A and D (P < 0.001). The amount of remaining debris were significant in the shafts of sizes 15 (P < 0.001) and 25 (P = 0.01). CONCLUSION: Using Micro 10 in both ultrasonic and conventional methods were acceptable for removing debris from the files. Furthermore, higher amounts of debris were found in the shafts and heads of files with lower sizes (15 and 25).