Frederico C Martinho1, Ana P M Gomes2, Aletéia M M Fernandes2, Nádia S Ferreira2, Marcos S Endo2, Lilian F Freitas2, Izabel C G Camões3. 1. Endodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, São José dos Campos Dental School, State University of São Paulo, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: Frederico.martinho@fosjc.unesp.br. 2. Endodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, São José dos Campos Dental School, State University of São Paulo, UNESP, São Paulo, Brazil. 3. Endodontic Division, Department of Restorative Dentistry, Fluminense Federal University, Niteroi, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals. METHODS:Forty-eight primarily infected root canals were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups: WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) (n = 12); Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 12), ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer) (n = 12), and Mtwo (VDW) (n = 12). Samples were collected before and after chemomechanical preparation. The irrigation was performed by using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. A chromogenic limulus amebocyte lysate assay test was used to quantify endotoxins. Culture techniques were used to determine bacterial colony-forming unit counts. RESULTS: In the baseline samples (ie, samples collected before chemomechanical preparation), endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were recovered from 100% of the root canal samples. No differences were found in the median percentage values of endotoxin reduction achieved with reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [95.15%] and Reciproc [96.21%]) and with rotary systems (ie, ProTaper [97.98%] and Mtwo [96.34%]) (P < .05). Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [99.45%] and Reciproc [99.93%]) and rotary systems (ProTaper [99.85%] and Mtwo [99.41%]) were effective in reducing the cultivable bacteria (all P < .05). Moreover, the culture analysis revealed no differences in bacterial load reduction (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne and Reciproc instruments) and rotary systems (ie, ProTaper and Mtwo instruments) showed similar effectiveness in reducing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals, but they were not able to eliminate them from all root canals analyzed.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals. METHODS: Forty-eight primarily infected root canals were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups: WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) (n = 12); Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 12), ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer) (n = 12), and Mtwo (VDW) (n = 12). Samples were collected before and after chemomechanical preparation. The irrigation was performed by using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. A chromogenic limulus amebocyte lysate assay test was used to quantify endotoxins. Culture techniques were used to determine bacterial colony-forming unit counts. RESULTS: In the baseline samples (ie, samples collected before chemomechanical preparation), endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were recovered from 100% of the root canal samples. No differences were found in the median percentage values of endotoxin reduction achieved with reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [95.15%] and Reciproc [96.21%]) and with rotary systems (ie, ProTaper [97.98%] and Mtwo [96.34%]) (P < .05). Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [99.45%] and Reciproc [99.93%]) and rotary systems (ProTaper [99.85%] and Mtwo [99.41%]) were effective in reducing the cultivable bacteria (all P < .05). Moreover, the culture analysis revealed no differences in bacterial load reduction (P > .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne and Reciproc instruments) and rotary systems (ie, ProTaper and Mtwo instruments) showed similar effectiveness in reducing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals, but they were not able to eliminate them from all root canals analyzed.
Authors: Frederico C Martinho; Lilian F Freitas; Gustavo G Nascimento; Aleteia M Fernandes; Fabio R M Leite; Ana P M Gomes; Izabel C G Camões Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-11-21 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Bruna Paloma DE Oliveira; Carlos Menezes Aguiar; Andréa Cruz Câmara; Miracy Muniz DE Albuquerque; Ana Cristina Regis DE Barros Correia; Monica Felts DE LA Roca Soares Journal: Acta Stomatol Croat Date: 2015-12
Authors: Christine Men Martins; Victor Eduardo De Souza Batista; Amanda Caselato Andolfatto Souza; Ana Cristina Andrada; Graziela Garrido Mori; João Eduardo Gomes Filho Journal: J Conserv Dent Date: 2019 Jul-Aug