Ioanna S Arvaniti1, Marouan G Khabbaz. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, University of Athens, Athens, Greece. iarvaniti@yahoo.com
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Taper is a factor that determines final root canal dimensions and, consequently, the dimensions of the space for the cleaning action of irrigants. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of taper on root canal cleanliness. METHODS:Root canals of 45 mandibular incisors were divided into 3 groups and prepared with GT rotary files to apical preparation size 30 and final taper 0.04, 0.06, and 0.08, respectively. Irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl was performed after each file. The final irrigation sequence was 10 mL 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, followed by 10 mL 2.5% NaOCl and 10 mL saline solution. The presence of debris and smear layer on root canal walls was evaluated under the scanning electron microscope with the use of a 4-category scale system. RESULTS: The presence of debris was minimal in all groups. Statistical analysis for the presence of smear layer showed no significant differences between the groups, whereas a significant difference was detected between the apical and middle thirds of each group. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, root canal preparation with tapers 0.04, 0.06, or 0.08 did not affect canal cleanliness. Debris removal was almost complete for all tapers, whereas smear layer was not removed, especially from the apical part of the canals.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Taper is a factor that determines final root canal dimensions and, consequently, the dimensions of the space for the cleaning action of irrigants. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to investigate the influence of taper on root canal cleanliness. METHODS: Root canals of 45 mandibular incisors were divided into 3 groups and prepared with GT rotary files to apical preparation size 30 and final taper 0.04, 0.06, and 0.08, respectively. Irrigation with 2.5% NaOCl was performed after each file. The final irrigation sequence was 10 mL 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid, followed by 10 mL 2.5% NaOCl and 10 mL saline solution. The presence of debris and smear layer on root canal walls was evaluated under the scanning electron microscope with the use of a 4-category scale system. RESULTS: The presence of debris was minimal in all groups. Statistical analysis for the presence of smear layer showed no significant differences between the groups, whereas a significant difference was detected between the apical and middle thirds of each group. CONCLUSIONS: Under the conditions of this study, root canal preparation with tapers 0.04, 0.06, or 0.08 did not affect canal cleanliness. Debris removal was almost complete for all tapers, whereas smear layer was not removed, especially from the apical part of the canals.
Authors: J M V Raghavendra Reddy; Prasanna Latha; Basavana Gowda; Varadendra Manvikar; D Benal Vijayalaxmi; Kalyana Chakravarthi Ponangi Journal: J Int Oral Health Date: 2014-02-26
Authors: Maira de Souza Carvalho; Emílio Carlos Sponchiado; Angela Delfina Bitencourt Garrido; Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia; André Augusto Franco Marques Journal: Eur J Dent Date: 2015 Jan-Mar
Authors: Emilio Carlos Sponchiado Júnior; Tiago Silva da Fonseca; Matheus Franco da Frota; Fredson Marcio Acris de Carvalho; André Augusto Franco Marques; Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia Journal: Contemp Clin Dent Date: 2014-04
Authors: Michael Solomonov; Hyeon-Cheol Kim; Avi Hadad; Dan Henry Levy; Joe Ben Itzhak; Oleg Levinson; Hadas Azizi Journal: Restor Dent Endod Date: 2020-03-04