Cargando…
Apical root canal cleaning after preparation with endodontic instruments: a randomized trial in vivo analysis
OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate vital pulp tissue removal from different endodontic instrumentation systems from root canal apical third in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty mandibular molars were selected and randomly divided into 2 test groups and one control group. Inclusion criteria w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
The Korean Academy of Conservative Dentistry
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7431928/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32839719 http://dx.doi.org/10.5395/rde.2020.45.e38 |
Sumario: | OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to evaluate vital pulp tissue removal from different endodontic instrumentation systems from root canal apical third in vivo. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty mandibular molars were selected and randomly divided into 2 test groups and one control group. Inclusion criteria were a positive response to cold sensibility test, curvature angle between 10 and 20 degrees, and curvature radius lower than 10 mm. Root canals prepared with Hero 642 system (size 45/0.02) (n = 10) and Reciproc R40 (size 40/0.06) (n = 10) and control (n = 10) without instrumentation. Canals were irrigated only with saline solution during root canal preparation. The apical third was evaluated considering the touched/untouched perimeter and area to evaluate the efficacy of root canal wall debridement. Statistical analysis used t-test for comparisons. RESULTS: Untouched root canal at cross-section perimeter, the Hero 642 system showed 41.44% ± 5.62% and Reciproc R40 58.67% ± 12.39% without contact with instruments. Regarding the untouched area, Hero 642 system showed 22.78% ± 6.42% and Reciproc R40 34.35% ± 8.52%. Neither instrument achieved complete cross-sectional root canal debridement. Hero 642 system rotary taper 0.02 instruments achieved significant greater wall contact perimeter and area compared to reciprocate the Reciproc R40 taper 0.06 instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Hero 642 achieved higher wall contact perimeter and area but, regardless of instrument size and taper, vital pulp during in vivo instrumentation is not entirely removed. |
---|