INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of debris removal between the Self-Adjusting File (SAF), WaveOne, and K3 file systems in the mesial roots of mandibular molars. In addition, the SAF was tested as a potential adjunct after instrumentation with other systems. METHODS: The mesial roots of 30 extracted mandibular molars were mounted in resin by using the K-Kube, sectioned at 2 and 4 mm from working length, and randomly placed into 3 groups: K3 group, sequential preparation with K3 files to an apical size of 35/.04; WaveOne group, preparation with WaveOne primary file; and SAF group, preparation with SAF. Images were taken before instrumentation, after instrumentation, after final irrigation, and after SAF adjunct irrigation. A cleanliness percentage was calculated by using interactive software. Comparisons between groups were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance and post hoc tests (P < .05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in canal cleanliness among the groups, but the WaveOne was significantly worse for isthmus cleanliness. Use of the SAF as an adjunct only significantly improved canal cleanliness in the K3 group at the 2-mm level by an average of 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in canal cleanliness between the 3 file systems; however, the SAF and K3 files performed significantly better than the WaveOne with respect to isthmus cleanliness. When used as a final irrigation adjunct device after instrumentation, the SAF provided a significant improvement only in a subset of the K3 group. Published by Elsevier Inc.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of debris removal between the Self-Adjusting File (SAF), WaveOne, and K3 file systems in the mesial roots of mandibular molars. In addition, the SAF was tested as a potential adjunct after instrumentation with other systems. METHODS: The mesial roots of 30 extracted mandibular molars were mounted in resin by using the K-Kube, sectioned at 2 and 4 mm from working length, and randomly placed into 3 groups: K3 group, sequential preparation with K3 files to an apical size of 35/.04; WaveOne group, preparation with WaveOne primary file; and SAF group, preparation with SAF. Images were taken before instrumentation, after instrumentation, after final irrigation, and after SAF adjunct irrigation. A cleanliness percentage was calculated by using interactive software. Comparisons between groups were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of variance and post hoc tests (P < .05). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in canal cleanliness among the groups, but the WaveOne was significantly worse for isthmus cleanliness. Use of the SAF as an adjunct only significantly improved canal cleanliness in the K3 group at the 2-mm level by an average of 1.7%. CONCLUSIONS: There was no difference in canal cleanliness between the 3 file systems; however, the SAF and K3 files performed significantly better than the WaveOne with respect to isthmus cleanliness. When used as a final irrigation adjunct device after instrumentation, the SAF provided a significant improvement only in a subset of the K3 group. Published by Elsevier Inc.