AIM: The purpose of this scanning electron microscope (SEM) study was to compare the cleanliness of the root canal walls following either a manual or a rotary technique of canal instrumentation. The hypothesis was that a rotary technique would produce a cleaner root canal. METHODOLOGY: Manual filing was performed on 10 extracted teeth using stainless steel S-files (Sjodings, Sendoline, Sweden). Powered instrumentation was carried out on a further 10 extracted teeth, using ProFile rotary nickel-titanium files in a handpiece (250 r.p.m.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. A solution of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite was used for irrigation. The roots were cut longitudinally and the canal walls were examined for debris and smear layer at the apical, middle and coronal level. RESULTS: Significantly less debris was found in the apical region using the manual filing technique (P < 0.05); no significant differences could be found at the other levels. Overall, significantly less debris was found on the root canal walls using the manual technique when the data from the three levels were compared (P = < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The manual technique employed in this study produced cleaner root canal walls than the rotary ProFile technique.
AIM: The purpose of this scanning electron microscope (SEM) study was to compare the cleanliness of the root canal walls following either a manual or a rotary technique of canal instrumentation. The hypothesis was that a rotary technique would produce a cleaner root canal. METHODOLOGY: Manual filing was performed on 10 extracted teeth using stainless steel S-files (Sjodings, Sendoline, Sweden). Powered instrumentation was carried out on a further 10 extracted teeth, using ProFile rotary nickel-titanium files in a handpiece (250 r.p.m.) according to the manufacturer's instructions. A solution of 0.5% sodium hypochlorite was used for irrigation. The roots were cut longitudinally and the canal walls were examined for debris and smear layer at the apical, middle and coronal level. RESULTS: Significantly less debris was found in the apical region using the manual filing technique (P < 0.05); no significant differences could be found at the other levels. Overall, significantly less debris was found on the root canal walls using the manual technique when the data from the three levels were compared (P = < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The manual technique employed in this study produced cleaner root canal walls than the rotary ProFile technique.