J M V Raghavendra Reddy1, Prasanna Latha2, Basavana Gowda3, Varadendra Manvikar4, D Benal Vijayalaxmi5, Kalyana Chakravarthi Ponangi6. 1. Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India. 2. Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Krishnadevaraya Dental College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India. 3. Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodntics, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India. 4. Department of Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India. 5. Department of Conservative Dentistry &Endodontics, Government Dental College, VIMS, Bellary, Karnataka, India. 6. Department of Conservative Dentistry &Endodntics, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Predictable successful endodontic therapy depends on correct diagnosis, effective cleaning, shaping and disinfection of the root canals and adequate obturation. Irrigation serves as a flush to remove debris, tissue solvent and lubricant from the canal irregularities; however these irregularities can restrict the complete debridement of root canal by mechanical instrumentation.Various types of hand and rotary instruments are used for the preparation of the root canal system to obtain debris free canals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of smear layer and debris removal on canal walls following the using of manual Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) files compared with rotary ProTaperNiTi files using a Scanning Electron Microscope in two individual groups. MATERIALS & METHODS: A comparative study consisting of 50 subjects randomized into two groups - 25 subjects in Group A (manual) and 25 subjects in Group B (rotary) was undertaken to investigate and compare the effects of smear layer and debris between manual and rotary NiTi instruments. Chi square test was used to find the significance of smear layer and debris removal in the coronal, middle and apical between Group A and Group B. RESULTS: Both systems of Rotary ProTaperNiTi and manual NiTi files used in the present study, did not create completely clean root canals. Manual NiTi files produced significantly less smear layer and debris compared to Rotary ProTaperNiTi instruments. Rotary instruments were less time consuming when compared to manual instruments. Instrument separation was not found to be significant with both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems of Rotary ProTaperNiTi and manual NiTi files used did not produce completely clean root canals. Manual NiTi files produced significantly less smear layer and debris compared to Rotary protaper instruments. How to cite the article: Reddy JM, Latha P, Gowda B, Manvikar V, Vijayalaxmi DB, Ponangi KC. Smear layer and debris removal using manual Ni-Ti files compared with rotary Protaper Ni-Ti files - An In-Vitro SEM study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(1):89-94.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Predictable successful endodontic therapy depends on correct diagnosis, effective cleaning, shaping and disinfection of the root canals and adequate obturation. Irrigation serves as a flush to remove debris, tissue solvent and lubricant from the canal irregularities; however these irregularities can restrict the complete debridement of root canal by mechanical instrumentation.Various types of hand and rotary instruments are used for the preparation of the root canal system to obtain debris free canals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of smear layer and debris removal on canal walls following the using of manual Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) files compared with rotary ProTaperNiTi files using a Scanning Electron Microscope in two individual groups. MATERIALS & METHODS: A comparative study consisting of 50 subjects randomized into two groups - 25 subjects in Group A (manual) and 25 subjects in Group B (rotary) was undertaken to investigate and compare the effects of smear layer and debris between manual and rotary NiTi instruments. Chi square test was used to find the significance of smear layer and debris removal in the coronal, middle and apical between Group A and Group B. RESULTS: Both systems of Rotary ProTaperNiTi and manual NiTi files used in the present study, did not create completely clean root canals. Manual NiTi files produced significantly less smear layer and debris compared to Rotary ProTaperNiTi instruments. Rotary instruments were less time consuming when compared to manual instruments. Instrument separation was not found to be significant with both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both systems of Rotary ProTaperNiTi and manual NiTi files used did not produce completely clean root canals. Manual NiTi files produced significantly less smear layer and debris compared to Rotary protaper instruments. How to cite the article: Reddy JM, Latha P, Gowda B, Manvikar V, Vijayalaxmi DB, Ponangi KC. Smear layer and debris removal using manual Ni-Ti files compared with rotary Protaper Ni-Ti files - An In-Vitro SEM study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(1):89-94.
Entities:
Keywords:
Debridement; ProTaperNiTi; manual NiTi files; smear layer