Cargando…

Comparison of Cleaning Efficiency of Root Canal Using Different Rotary NiTi Instrumentation System: A Scanning Electron Microscopic Study

Background: To ensure that endodontic treatment is as effective as possible, it is important to remove any smear layer that forms as part of the instrumentation procedure. This layer might reduce the overall effectiveness of endodontic therapy. Aim of the study: For this research, two distinct types...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agrawal, Sakshi, Bichpuriya, Anjali, Maria, Rahul
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Cureus 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9117843/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35602820
http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.24200
Descripción
Sumario:Background: To ensure that endodontic treatment is as effective as possible, it is important to remove any smear layer that forms as part of the instrumentation procedure. This layer might reduce the overall effectiveness of endodontic therapy. Aim of the study: For this research, two distinct types of rotary NiTi files were compared: WaveOne Gold (WOG) (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) and F360 (Komet Brasseler GmbH & Co., Lemgo, Germany) for its capacity to eliminate trash and the smear layer. Materials and methods: Two groups (n=20 each) of 40 mandibular second premolar teeth were employed in this investigation, with each group receiving a random allocation of teeth. The F360 system and the WaveOne Gold system are two sets of instruments. The samples were irrigated with a mixture of sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) (5.25%) and citric acid (40%). Finally, all samples in the centre of the coronal, middle, and apical thirds were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). Mann-Whitney U tests were used to analyse the data. Results: F360 instrument showed a statistically significant difference for smear layer removal among all thirds of the root canal whereas WOG resulted in a significant difference when the apical third was compared to the middle and coronal third. Significant differences were found in the middle and apical third in terms of smear layer removal between the two groups. Both F360 and WOG instruments showed statistically significant differences for debris removal among all thirds of the root canal. No significant differences were found in the coronal, middle, and apical third in terms of debris removal between the two groups. Conclusion: WOG resulted in cleaner canals compared to the F360 file system at coronal, middle, and apical third.