INTRODUCTION: This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria in endodontic retreatment. METHODS: Thirty endodontically treated teeth with post-treatment apical periodontitis were selected. The specimens were divided into three groups according to the system used: WaveOne (n = 10), Reciproc instrument (n = 10), and ProTaper Universal Retreatment system (n = 10). 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: At baseline, endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were recovered from 100% of the root canal samples in a median value of 5.84 EU/mL and 4.98 × 10(3) CFU/mL, respectively. After CMP, no differences were found in the median percentage values of endotoxin reduction achieved with reciprocating systems-WaveOne [94.11%] and Reciproc [93.29%] and with rotary systems-ProTaper [94.98%] (P > 0.05). Both single-file reciprocating systems [WaveOne (98.27%) and Reciproc (99.54%)] and rotary system [ProTaper (98.73%)] were effective in reducing bacterial load (P > 0.05). Moreover, no differences were found among the systems tested. CONCLUSIONS: The Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating systems were as effective as the ProTaper system for removal of endotoxins and bacteria in endodontic retreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All systems tested were effective to remove cultivable bacteria and endotoxin in endodontic retreatment. As no differences among systems were observed, it is possible to suggest that clinicians should choose the preferred technique to perform endodontic.
INTRODUCTION: This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria in endodontic retreatment. METHODS: Thirty endodontically treated teeth with post-treatment apical periodontitis were selected. The specimens were divided into three groups according to the system used: WaveOne (n = 10), Reciproc instrument (n = 10), and ProTaper Universal Retreatment system (n = 10). 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: At baseline, endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were recovered from 100% of the root canal samples in a median value of 5.84 EU/mL and 4.98 × 10(3) CFU/mL, respectively. After CMP, no differences were found in the median percentage values of endotoxin reduction achieved with reciprocating systems-WaveOne [94.11%] and Reciproc [93.29%] and with rotary systems-ProTaper [94.98%] (P > 0.05). Both single-file reciprocating systems [WaveOne (98.27%) and Reciproc (99.54%)] and rotary system [ProTaper (98.73%)] were effective in reducing bacterial load (P > 0.05). Moreover, no differences were found among the systems tested. CONCLUSIONS: The Reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating systems were as effective as the ProTaper system for removal of endotoxins and bacteria in endodontic retreatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: All systems tested were effective to remove cultivable bacteria and endotoxin in endodontic retreatment. As no differences among systems were observed, it is possible to suggest that clinicians should choose the preferred technique to perform endodontic.
Authors: João Vicente Baroni Barbizam; Luis Fernando Fariniuk; Melissa Andréia Marchesan; Jesus Djalma Pecora; Manoel D Sousa-Neto Journal: J Endod Date: 2002-05 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Frederico C Martinho; Ana P M Gomes; Aletéia M M Fernandes; Nádia S Ferreira; Marcos S Endo; Lilian F Freitas; Izabel C G Camões Journal: J Endod Date: 2014-02-02 Impact factor: 4.171
Authors: Mario Dioguardi; Giuseppe Troiano; Luigi Laino; Lucio Lo Russo; Giovanni Giannatempo; Floriana Lauritano; Marco Cicciù; Lorenzo Lo Muzio Journal: Int J Clin Exp Med Date: 2015-10-15
Authors: Lilian Rachel de Lima Aboud; Ricardo Tadeu Lopes; Bernardo Camargo Dos Santos; Thaís Maria Pires Dos Santos; Leonardo Aboud Costa Viana; Miriam F Zaccaro Scelza Journal: Iran Endod J Date: 2018