AIM: To compare using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) root canal walls following instrumentation in vitro with two different rotary NiTi instruments. The hypothesis was that no difference should be observable between the experimental groups in terms of debris on canal walls and surface morphology. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-four single-rooted human teeth were selected. Two types of NiTi instruments were used, Mtwo (Sweden & Martina, Padova, Italy) and ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Irrigation for both groups was performed after each instrument change with 5% NaOCl, 3% H2O2 and 17% EDTA solutions. Three different areas (coronal, middle and apical thirds) of the root canal were evaluated using SEM. The canal wall of each sample was assessed and compared using a predefined scale of four parameters, namely, smear layer, pulpal debris, inorganic dentine debris, surface profile. Data were analysed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test (anova). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) was found between the apical third and the middle and coronal thirds for both groups. No difference was observable between instrumentation groups. In the apical third canal walls were often contaminated by inorganic debris and by smear layer. In the apical third, the surface profile was affected by uninstrumented regions, comprising dentine depressions and grooves in which predentine was still visible. CONCLUSION: Both instruments produced a clean and debris-free dentine surfaces in the coronal and middle thirds, but were unable to produce a dentine surfaces free from smear layer and debris in the apical third. The presence of deep grooves and depression on dentine walls in the apical third may well explain the presence of less-instrumented areas.
AIM: To compare using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) root canal walls following instrumentation in vitro with two different rotary NiTi instruments. The hypothesis was that no difference should be observable between the experimental groups in terms of debris on canal walls and surface morphology. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-four single-rooted human teeth were selected. Two types of NiTi instruments were used, Mtwo (Sweden & Martina, Padova, Italy) and ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland). Irrigation for both groups was performed after each instrument change with 5% NaOCl, 3% H2O2 and 17% EDTA solutions. Three different areas (coronal, middle and apical thirds) of the root canal were evaluated using SEM. The canal wall of each sample was assessed and compared using a predefined scale of four parameters, namely, smear layer, pulpal debris, inorganic dentine debris, surface profile. Data were analysed statistically using the Kruskal-Wallis test (anova). RESULTS: A statistically significant difference (P < 0.01) was found between the apical third and the middle and coronal thirds for both groups. No difference was observable between instrumentation groups. In the apical third canal walls were often contaminated by inorganic debris and by smear layer. In the apical third, the surface profile was affected by uninstrumented regions, comprising dentine depressions and grooves in which predentine was still visible. CONCLUSION: Both instruments produced a clean and debris-free dentine surfaces in the coronal and middle thirds, but were unable to produce a dentine surfaces free from smear layer and debris in the apical third. The presence of deep grooves and depression on dentine walls in the apical third may well explain the presence of less-instrumented areas.
Authors: Felipe Augusto Restrepo-Restrepo; Viviana Andrea Holguín-Vásquez; Syldana Julieth Cañas-Jiménez; Paula Andrea Villa-Machado; Sara Ochoa-Soto; Claudia Patricia Ossa-Orozco; Sergio Iván Tobón-Arroyave Journal: Dent Res J (Isfahan) Date: 2021-06-22