AIMS: To assess whether pre-soaking files in an enzymatic cleaner prior to ultrasonic cleaning had any effect on cleanliness and also to assess the effect of the time that endodontic files spend in an ultrasonic bath prior to sterilization on their overall cleanliness. METHODOLOGY: Twenty root canals in a total of ten patients were cleaned and shaped using conventional techniques. Following use, some of the files were pre-soaked and then ultrasonically cleaned for either 5, 10, 30 or 60 min. Other files had no pre-soaking and were then ultrasonically cleaned. There were two control groups, one where the files were pre-soaked and not ultrasonically cleaned and the other where the files were neither pre-soaked nor ultrasonically cleaned. All files were then subjected to a standard packing and autoclaving process. Following autoclaving, the files were examined using a light microscope at a magnification of 40x. The cutting section of each file was divided into two parts, the tip and the shaft, for visualization under the microscope. Any debris or cement on the files was scored using a modification of the scale used by Smith et al. (Journal of Hospital Infection, 51, 2002, 233). The data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Pre-soaking had no significant effect on the cleanliness of the files (P = 0.18 at the tip, P = 0.93 at the shaft). Ultrasonic cleaning had a significant effect on the cleanliness of the files (P < 0.00) but there was not a linear relationship between cleanliness and the ultrasonic cleaning time. There was little benefit in extending the ultrasonic cleaning time beyond 5 min. Calcium hydroxide deposits on two files were resistant to ultrasonic cleaning. CONCLUSIONS: There is no benefit in pre-soaking endodontic files prior to ultrasonic cleaning. The optimum time for ultrasonic cleaning was between 5 and 10 min. Further ultrasonic exposure, up to 60 min, did not improve cleanliness. Although a majority of files were free from debris following ultrasonic cleaning, a substantial minority still retained debris. This supports the case for endodontic files being single-use only.
AIMS: To assess whether pre-soaking files in an enzymatic cleaner prior to ultrasonic cleaning had any effect on cleanliness and also to assess the effect of the time that endodontic files spend in an ultrasonic bath prior to sterilization on their overall cleanliness. METHODOLOGY: Twenty root canals in a total of ten patients were cleaned and shaped using conventional techniques. Following use, some of the files were pre-soaked and then ultrasonically cleaned for either 5, 10, 30 or 60 min. Other files had no pre-soaking and were then ultrasonically cleaned. There were two control groups, one where the files were pre-soaked and not ultrasonically cleaned and the other where the files were neither pre-soaked nor ultrasonically cleaned. All files were then subjected to a standard packing and autoclaving process. Following autoclaving, the files were examined using a light microscope at a magnification of 40x. The cutting section of each file was divided into two parts, the tip and the shaft, for visualization under the microscope. Any debris or cement on the files was scored using a modification of the scale used by Smith et al. (Journal of Hospital Infection, 51, 2002, 233). The data were analysed using one-way analysis of variance. RESULTS: Pre-soaking had no significant effect on the cleanliness of the files (P = 0.18 at the tip, P = 0.93 at the shaft). Ultrasonic cleaning had a significant effect on the cleanliness of the files (P < 0.00) but there was not a linear relationship between cleanliness and the ultrasonic cleaning time. There was little benefit in extending the ultrasonic cleaning time beyond 5 min. Calcium hydroxide deposits on two files were resistant to ultrasonic cleaning. CONCLUSIONS: There is no benefit in pre-soaking endodontic files prior to ultrasonic cleaning. The optimum time for ultrasonic cleaning was between 5 and 10 min. Further ultrasonic exposure, up to 60 min, did not improve cleanliness. Although a majority of files were free from debris following ultrasonic cleaning, a substantial minority still retained debris. This supports the case for endodontic files being single-use only.
Authors: Y Al-Hadeethi; S Al-Jedani; M A N Razvi; A Saeed; A M Abdel-Daiem; M Shahnawaze Ansari; Saeed S Babkair; Numan A Salah; A Al-Mujtaba Journal: PLoS One Date: 2016-05-26 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Diego Sovereto; Gaetano Illuzzi; Enrica Laneve; Bruna Raddato; Claudia Arena; Vito Carlo Alberto Caponio; Giorgia Apollonia Caloro; Khrystyna Zhurakivska; Giuseppe Troiano; Lorenzo Lo Muzio Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2020-02-08
Authors: César F Cayo-Rojas; Estefany Brito-Ávila; Ana S Aliaga-Mariñas; Karen K Hernández-Caba; Emylain D Saenz-Cazorla; Marysela I Ladera-Castañeda; Luis A Cervantes-Ganoza Journal: J Int Soc Prev Community Dent Date: 2021-06-10