Scanning electron microscope study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus Lightspeed instrumentation

Bechelli, C.; Orlandini, Sandra Zecchi; Colafranceschi, M

doi:10.1046/j.1365-2591.1999.00250.x

Cited by 38 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, an irregular secondary dentine is associated with the physiological aging of the root, 10 so that surface morphology especially in the apical region is far from smooth. 11 This could contribute to higher dye scores in the apical third of the canal.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of the Root Canal by K-File and Protaper Next, Hyflex Edm Rotary System an in Vitro Study

Devi¹,

Priyadarshini²,

Dharmani³

et al. 2016

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of the Root Canal by K-File and Protaper Next, Hyflex Edm Rotary System an in Vitro Study

Devi¹,

Priyadarshini²,

Dharmani³

et al. 2016

jemds

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…6 Thus, major factor affecting root canal success is cleaning and shaping. 7,8 This includes the removal of the infected dentin and organic tissue by shaping and dissolution.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study

Reddy

Dash

Kallepalli

et al. 2013

The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: The present study was conducted to compare the cleaning efficacy (debris and smear layer removal) of hand and two NiTi rotary instrumentation systems (K3 and ProTaper). Materials and methods:Sixty single rooted human maxillary anterior teeth decoronated at the cementoenamel junction were used. All the specimens were divided into four groups of 15 teeth each, group I-ProTaper rotary instrumentation done, group II-K3 rotary instrumentation done, group III-Stainless steel K-file instrumentation done, group IV-root canal irrigation without instrumentation. Root canal preparation was done in a crown down manner and 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigant after each file followed by final rinse with 5 ml of 17% EDTA solution, then specimens were scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination.Results: Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD test. Group I showed highly statistical significant difference compared to other groups. There was no statistically significant difference considering smear layer at any levels among the groups with no smear layer formation in group IV. Conclusion:ProTaper rotary instrumentation showed the maximum cleaning efficacy followed by K3 rotary instrumentation in the coronal, middle and apical thirds of the root canal.Clinical significance: ProTaper rotary instruments are more efficient than hand and K3 rotary instruments during root canal treatment.

show abstract

“…This is in accordance with other studies which were performed to evaluate the debriding ability of various instruments. [479–13]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Histological analysis of cleaning efficacy of hand and rotary instruments in the apical third of the root canal: A comparative study

2011

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim:To compare the cleaning efficiency of manual and rotary instrumentation in the apical third of the root canal system.Materials and Methods:In group 1 (n=10), instrumentation was performed with stainless steel K-file; in group 2 (n=10), it was done with hand ProTaper files; and in group 3 (n=10), instrumentation was done with ProTaper rotary. Distilled water was used for irrigation. The apical third was sectioned transversally and histologically processed. The cross sections were examined under optic microscope and debris was measured using Motic software.Results:Instrumentation with stainless steel K-files showed minimum amount of debris, followed by ProTaper hand files, and rotary ProTaper files were least effective with maximum amount of debris; however, there were no significant differences between the three experimental groups.Conclusions:Both the manual and rotary instrumentation are relatively efficient in cleaning the apical third of the root canal system and the choice between manual and rotary instrumentation should depend on case to case basis.

show abstract

Scanning electron microscope study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus Lightspeed instrumentation

Abstract: It may be inferred that the choice between hand and LightSpeed instrumentation should be based on factors other than the amount of root canal debridement, which does not vary significantly according to the instruments used.

Cited by 38 publications

References 25 publications

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of the Root Canal by K-File and Protaper Next, Hyflex Edm Rotary System an in Vitro Study

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of the Root Canal by K-File and Protaper Next, Hyflex Edm Rotary System an in Vitro Study

A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study

Histological analysis of cleaning efficacy of hand and rotary instruments in the apical third of the root canal: A comparative study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About