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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |