An in vitro evaluation of smear layer removal with non-activated self adjusting file, xp-endo finisher and rotary canal brush: A scanning electron microscopic study

Krishnaveni Marella, N. Sampathi, Leela Pavani, C. Manduru, G. Moosani
{"title":"An in vitro evaluation of smear layer removal with non-activated self adjusting file, xp-endo finisher and rotary canal brush: A scanning electron microscopic study","authors":"Krishnaveni Marella, N. Sampathi, Leela Pavani, C. Manduru, G. Moosani","doi":"10.4103/jdrntruhs.jdrntruhs_86_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Endodontic success involves removal of necrotic vital tissue and microorganisms from the root canal. Irrigation is an essential part of canal debridement, because it allows cleaning beyond what might be achieved by instrumentation alone. Aim: The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of different final irrigation agitation devices. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 extracted single-rooted human premolar tooth were taken and decoronated. All the specimens were cleaned and shaped using ProTaper universal rotary files system and intermittent irrigation was done using 2 ml of 3% NaOCl and randomly divided into four groups, based on irrigant agitation device. Group 1 = conventional needle, Group 2 = Rotary canal brush, Group 3 = Non-activated Self adjusting file, and Group 4 = Xp-endo finisher. Final irrigant used is 17% Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic acid (EDTA) smear clear. All the specimens were finally flushed with distilled water and dried with paper points, then they were split longitudinally into halves and examined under scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23, P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Non-activated self adjusting file (SAF) and Xp-endo finisher showed significantly cleaner walls with removal of smear layer followed by canal brush. There was no significant statistical difference (P < 0.05) between non-activated SAF and Xp-endo finisher. Conclusion: Xp-endo finisher shows superior results compared with other agitation methods.","PeriodicalId":15571,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences","volume":"36 1","pages":"17 - 22"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/jdrntruhs.jdrntruhs_86_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: Endodontic success involves removal of necrotic vital tissue and microorganisms from the root canal. Irrigation is an essential part of canal debridement, because it allows cleaning beyond what might be achieved by instrumentation alone. Aim: The aim of this in vitro study is to compare the smear layer removal efficacy of different final irrigation agitation devices. Materials and Methods: A total of 60 extracted single-rooted human premolar tooth were taken and decoronated. All the specimens were cleaned and shaped using ProTaper universal rotary files system and intermittent irrigation was done using 2 ml of 3% NaOCl and randomly divided into four groups, based on irrigant agitation device. Group 1 = conventional needle, Group 2 = Rotary canal brush, Group 3 = Non-activated Self adjusting file, and Group 4 = Xp-endo finisher. Final irrigant used is 17% Ethylene Diamine Tetra Acetic acid (EDTA) smear clear. All the specimens were finally flushed with distilled water and dried with paper points, then they were split longitudinally into halves and examined under scanning electron microscope. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 23, P value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Non-activated self adjusting file (SAF) and Xp-endo finisher showed significantly cleaner walls with removal of smear layer followed by canal brush. There was no significant statistical difference (P < 0.05) between non-activated SAF and Xp-endo finisher. Conclusion: Xp-endo finisher shows superior results compared with other agitation methods.
非激活自调节锉、xp-endo涂饰剂和转管刷去除涂抹层的体外评价:扫描电镜研究
背景:根管治疗的成功包括从根管中清除坏死的重要组织和微生物。冲洗是清创的重要组成部分,因为它可以比单独使用器械更清洁。目的:比较不同终灌搅拌装置去除涂片层的效果。材料与方法:取60颗拔除的单根人前磨牙进行修复。所有标本采用ProTaper通用旋转锉系统清洗成型,用2 ml 3% NaOCl间歇冲洗,根据冲洗搅拌装置随机分为4组。组1 =常规针,组2 =转管刷,组3 =非激活自调节锉,组4 = Xp-endo整理器。最后使用的冲洗剂是17%乙二胺四乙酸(EDTA)涂抹干净。所有标本最后用蒸馏水冲洗,用纸点干燥,然后纵向分成两半,在扫描电镜下观察。数据采用SPSS 23版分析,P值<0.05为差异有统计学意义。结果:非激活自调节锉(SAF)和Xp-endo整理剂均能显著清洁管壁,先去除涂层,再用管刷。未活化的SAF与Xp-endo完成物之间差异无统计学意义(P < 0.05)。结论:与其他搅拌方法相比,Xp-endo整理剂具有较好的效果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
14
审稿时长
35 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信