Cargando…

Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study

AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of intracanal bacteria extruded apically after instrumentation with three different nickel–titanium rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected, access cavities were prepared, and the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Polineni, Swapnika, Damaraju, Bhargavi, Bolla, Nagesh, Sunil, Ch, Krishna, N. Vamsee, Sreeha, K.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7861072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33551607
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_283_19
_version_ 1783647011407396864
author Polineni, Swapnika
Damaraju, Bhargavi
Bolla, Nagesh
Sunil, Ch
Krishna, N. Vamsee
Sreeha, K.
author_facet Polineni, Swapnika
Damaraju, Bhargavi
Bolla, Nagesh
Sunil, Ch
Krishna, N. Vamsee
Sreeha, K.
author_sort Polineni, Swapnika
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of intracanal bacteria extruded apically after instrumentation with three different nickel–titanium rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected, access cavities were prepared, and the teeth were mounted in the bacterial collection apparatus. Root canals were contaminated with a suspension of Enterococcus faecalis and incubated for 24 h at 37°C. The contaminated teeth were divided into four groups of 10 teeth each according to the rotary system used for instrumentation: Group 1: ProTaper universal files, Group 2: MTwo files, Group 3: ProTaper Next files, and Group 4: Control group (no instrumentation). Bacteria extruded after preparations were collected into vials. The number of colony-forming units (CFUs) was determined for each sample. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data obtained were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc Tukey’s test with a P = 0.05 as the level for statistical significance. RESULTS: The results suggested a statistically significant difference in the number of CFUs between four experimental groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Least amount of bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next Group while more bacterial extrusion was seen in MTwo Group.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7861072
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-78610722021-02-05 Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study Polineni, Swapnika Damaraju, Bhargavi Bolla, Nagesh Sunil, Ch Krishna, N. Vamsee Sreeha, K. J Conserv Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of this study was to evaluate the number of intracanal bacteria extruded apically after instrumentation with three different nickel–titanium rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY: Forty freshly extracted mandibular premolars were selected, access cavities were prepared, and the teeth were mounted in the bacterial collection apparatus. Root canals were contaminated with a suspension of Enterococcus faecalis and incubated for 24 h at 37°C. The contaminated teeth were divided into four groups of 10 teeth each according to the rotary system used for instrumentation: Group 1: ProTaper universal files, Group 2: MTwo files, Group 3: ProTaper Next files, and Group 4: Control group (no instrumentation). Bacteria extruded after preparations were collected into vials. The number of colony-forming units (CFUs) was determined for each sample. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: The data obtained were analyzed using the one-way analysis of variance followed by post hoc Tukey’s test with a P = 0.05 as the level for statistical significance. RESULTS: The results suggested a statistically significant difference in the number of CFUs between four experimental groups (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Least amount of bacterial extrusion was seen in ProTaper Next Group while more bacterial extrusion was seen in MTwo Group. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2020 2020-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC7861072/ /pubmed/33551607 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_283_19 Text en Copyright: © 2020 Journal of Conservative Dentistry http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.
spellingShingle Original Article
Polineni, Swapnika
Damaraju, Bhargavi
Bolla, Nagesh
Sunil, Ch
Krishna, N. Vamsee
Sreeha, K.
Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study
title Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study
title_full Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study
title_fullStr Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study
title_full_unstemmed Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study
title_short Comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using ProTaper Next, Mtwo, and ProTaper rotary systems: An in vitro study
title_sort comparative evaluation of apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria using protaper next, mtwo, and protaper rotary systems: an in vitro study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7861072/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33551607
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/JCD.JCD_283_19
work_keys_str_mv AT polineniswapnika comparativeevaluationofapicalextrusionofintracanalbacteriausingprotapernextmtwoandprotaperrotarysystemsaninvitrostudy
AT damarajubhargavi comparativeevaluationofapicalextrusionofintracanalbacteriausingprotapernextmtwoandprotaperrotarysystemsaninvitrostudy
AT bollanagesh comparativeevaluationofapicalextrusionofintracanalbacteriausingprotapernextmtwoandprotaperrotarysystemsaninvitrostudy
AT sunilch comparativeevaluationofapicalextrusionofintracanalbacteriausingprotapernextmtwoandprotaperrotarysystemsaninvitrostudy
AT krishnanvamsee comparativeevaluationofapicalextrusionofintracanalbacteriausingprotapernextmtwoandprotaperrotarysystemsaninvitrostudy
AT sreehak comparativeevaluationofapicalextrusionofintracanalbacteriausingprotapernextmtwoandprotaperrotarysystemsaninvitrostudy