Cargando…

Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study

AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the cleanliness level achieved with and without the application of enzymatic detergent for the manual method versus the ultrasonic method, applied to Flexoreamer K-type files No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 192 K-type Flexoreamer files w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Cayo-Rojas, César F, Brito-Ávila, Estefany, Aliaga-Mariñas, Ana S, Hernández-Caba, Karen K, Saenz-Cazorla, Emylain D, Ladera-Castañeda, Marysela I, Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis A
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8257017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34268193
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_8_21
_version_ 1783718217502425088
author Cayo-Rojas, César F
Brito-Ávila, Estefany
Aliaga-Mariñas, Ana S
Hernández-Caba, Karen K
Saenz-Cazorla, Emylain D
Ladera-Castañeda, Marysela I
Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis A
author_facet Cayo-Rojas, César F
Brito-Ávila, Estefany
Aliaga-Mariñas, Ana S
Hernández-Caba, Karen K
Saenz-Cazorla, Emylain D
Ladera-Castañeda, Marysela I
Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis A
author_sort Cayo-Rojas, César F
collection PubMed
description AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the cleanliness level achieved with and without the application of enzymatic detergent for the manual method versus the ultrasonic method, applied to Flexoreamer K-type files No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 192 K-type Flexoreamer files were divided into four categories: A1 (ultrasonic method with enzymatic detergent), A2 (ultrasonic method without enzymatic detergent), B1 (manual method with enzymatic detergent), and B2 (manual method without enzymatic detergent). Each category was randomly distributed in three groups of 16 files each (No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35). The files were used for biomechanical instrumentation of the root canal in premolars. The active part of the files was examined under a stereomicroscope, considering four cleaning levels: 4 (100% cleanliness), 3 (95–99% cleanliness), 2 (85–94% cleanliness), 1 (75–84% cleanliness), and 0 (less than 75% cleanliness). For hypothesis testing, the Mann–Whitney U-test was used to differentiate between techniques, and the Kruskal–Wallis multiple comparison test was used to compare pairs of files within each cleaning method. RESULTS: When using enzymatic detergents, the manual and ultrasonic methods did not show significant differences when comparing each group of the files analyzed (P > 0.05). However, when comparing the cleaning level without enzymatic detergent between the manual and ultrasonic methods, we observed that it obtained a superior result when compared with the manual method for each type of file: No. 25 (P = 0.021), No. 30 (P < 0.001), and No. 35 (P < 0.001). Both methods achieved a significantly higher level of cleaning with the application of the enzymatic detergent (P < 0.05) than without applying it. CONCLUSION: The ultrasonic cleaning method proved to be the most effective method for the removal of biologic waste when compared with the manual method using a nylon brush. However, there was no significant difference between these two methods when enzymatic detergent was used.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8257017
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Wolters Kluwer - Medknow
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82570172021-07-14 Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study Cayo-Rojas, César F Brito-Ávila, Estefany Aliaga-Mariñas, Ana S Hernández-Caba, Karen K Saenz-Cazorla, Emylain D Ladera-Castañeda, Marysela I Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis A J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Original Article AIM: The aim of this article is to evaluate the cleanliness level achieved with and without the application of enzymatic detergent for the manual method versus the ultrasonic method, applied to Flexoreamer K-type files No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 192 K-type Flexoreamer files were divided into four categories: A1 (ultrasonic method with enzymatic detergent), A2 (ultrasonic method without enzymatic detergent), B1 (manual method with enzymatic detergent), and B2 (manual method without enzymatic detergent). Each category was randomly distributed in three groups of 16 files each (No. 25, No. 30, and No. 35). The files were used for biomechanical instrumentation of the root canal in premolars. The active part of the files was examined under a stereomicroscope, considering four cleaning levels: 4 (100% cleanliness), 3 (95–99% cleanliness), 2 (85–94% cleanliness), 1 (75–84% cleanliness), and 0 (less than 75% cleanliness). For hypothesis testing, the Mann–Whitney U-test was used to differentiate between techniques, and the Kruskal–Wallis multiple comparison test was used to compare pairs of files within each cleaning method. RESULTS: When using enzymatic detergents, the manual and ultrasonic methods did not show significant differences when comparing each group of the files analyzed (P > 0.05). However, when comparing the cleaning level without enzymatic detergent between the manual and ultrasonic methods, we observed that it obtained a superior result when compared with the manual method for each type of file: No. 25 (P = 0.021), No. 30 (P < 0.001), and No. 35 (P < 0.001). Both methods achieved a significantly higher level of cleaning with the application of the enzymatic detergent (P < 0.05) than without applying it. CONCLUSION: The ultrasonic cleaning method proved to be the most effective method for the removal of biologic waste when compared with the manual method using a nylon brush. However, there was no significant difference between these two methods when enzymatic detergent was used. Wolters Kluwer - Medknow 2021-06-10 /pmc/articles/PMC8257017/ /pubmed/34268193 http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_8_21 Text en Copyright: © 2021 Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry https://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
Cayo-Rojas, César F
Brito-Ávila, Estefany
Aliaga-Mariñas, Ana S
Hernández-Caba, Karen K
Saenz-Cazorla, Emylain D
Ladera-Castañeda, Marysela I
Cervantes-Ganoza, Luis A
Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study
title Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study
title_full Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study
title_fullStr Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study
title_full_unstemmed Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study
title_short Cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: An experimental study
title_sort cleaning of endodontic files with and without enzymatic detergent by means of the manual method versus the ultrasonic method: an experimental study
topic Original Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8257017/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34268193
http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_8_21
work_keys_str_mv AT cayorojascesarf cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy
AT britoavilaestefany cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy
AT aliagamarinasanas cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy
AT hernandezcabakarenk cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy
AT saenzcazorlaemylaind cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy
AT laderacastanedamaryselai cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy
AT cervantesganozaluisa cleaningofendodonticfileswithandwithoutenzymaticdetergentbymeansofthemanualmethodversustheultrasonicmethodanexperimentalstudy