Premium
Effectiveness in cleaning oval‐shaped root canals using Anatomic Endodontic Technology, ProFile and manual instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopic study
Author(s) -
Zmener O.,
Pameijer C. H.,
Banegas G.
Publication year - 2005
Publication title -
international endodontic journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.988
H-Index - 119
eISSN - 1365-2591
pISSN - 0143-2885
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2005.00938.x
Subject(s) - smear layer , root canal , dentistry , instrumentation (computer programming) , scanning electron microscope , debris , materials science , orthodontics , biomedical engineering , medicine , geology , composite material , oceanography , computer science , operating system
Aim To compare in vitro the cleanliness of root canal walls in oval‐shaped root canals following automated or manual instrumentation. Methodology Forty‐five oval‐shaped single‐rooted maxillary and mandibular premolars with straight canals were divided into three groups of 15. Automated canal preparation was performed using Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET, group 1) and the ProFile system (group 2). Manual instrumentation (group 3) was performed with K‐Flexofiles. Irrigation was performed using alternately 5.25% NaOCl and 17% EDTA, followed by rinsing with saline. The roots were split longitudinally into halves and the canals examined at ×200 and ×400 in a scanning electron microscope. The presence of debris and smear layer was recorded at distances of 1, 5 and 10 mm from the working length using a three‐step scoring scale and a 300 μ m square grid. Mean scores for debris and smear layer were calculated and statistically analysed for significance ( P < 0.05) between and within groups, using the Kruskal–Wallis nonparametric anova and Dunn's tests. Results At 1, 5 and 10‐mm levels the root canals prepared with AET had significantly less surface debris and smear layer on the canal walls compared with canals prepared with ProFile or manual instrumentation. For all three groups significantly lower mean smear layer scores ( P < 0.05) were recorded at 5 and 10‐mm levels compared with the 1 mm level. Significantly lower mean debris scores ( P < 0.05) were also recorded at 5 and 10‐mm levels for the AET group whereas no significant differences were found between the three levels for the ProFile and manual instrumentation groups. Conclusions Although better instrumentation scores were obtained in canals prepared with AET, complete cleanliness was not achieved by any of the techniques and instruments investigated.