Gustavo De-Deus1, Juliana Marins2, Emmanuel João Nogueira Leal Silva3, Erick Souza4, Felipe Gonçalves Belladonna5, Claudia Reis6, Alessandra Silveira Machado7, Ricardo Tadeu Lopes7, Marco Aurélio Versiani8, Sidnei Paciornik9, Aline Almeida Neves10. 1. Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University, Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: endogus@gmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Department of Endodontics, Grande Rio University, Duque de Caxias, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 4. Department of Dentistry II, Federal University of Maranhão, São Luis, Maranhão, Brazil. 5. Department of Endodontics, Fluminense Federal University, Niterói, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 6. Department of Endodontics, University of Espírito Santo, Vitória, Espírito Santo, Brazil. 7. Nuclear Engineering Program, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 8. Department of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School of Ribeirão Preto, University of São Paulo, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. 9. Department of Material Engineering, PUC-Rio, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 10. Department of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the amount of hard tissue debris produced after different apical enlargement with single-file reciprocating systems (WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer, Baillaigues, Switzerland] and Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany]) and a conventional multifile rotary system (BioRaCe [FKG Dentaire, La-Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland]) using micro-computed tomographic imaging. METHODS: Thirty moderately curved mesial roots of mandibular molars presenting 2 independent root canals were selected and scanned at an isotropic resolution of 14.16 μm. The sample was assigned to 3 groups (n = 10) with respect to the root length and degree of curvature of the mesial root according to the system used for the root canal preparation: Reciproc, WaveOne, and BioRaCe. Second and third scans were taken after the root canals were prepared up to ISO sizes 25 and 40, respectively. The matched images of the mesial canals, before and after preparation, were examined from the furcation level to the apex to evaluate the amount of hard tissue debris (%). Data were statistically compared using a general linear model for repeated-measures with a significance level set at 5%. RESULTS: Instrumentation systems per se did not influence the amount of hard tissue accumulation (P > .05), whereas a significant reduction in the percentage of hard tissue debris was observed after sequential enlargement in all groups (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the systems yielded root canals completely free from packed hard tissue debris. The increased final apical size resulted in significantly less debris accumulation for both reciprocating and rotary systems.
INTRODUCTION: This study compared the amount of hard tissue debris produced after different apical enlargement with single-file reciprocating systems (WaveOne [Dentsply Maillefer, Baillaigues, Switzerland] and Reciproc [VDW, Munich, Germany]) and a conventional multifile rotary system (BioRaCe [FKG Dentaire, La-Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland]) using micro-computed tomographic imaging. METHODS: Thirty moderately curved mesial roots of mandibular molars presenting 2 independent root canals were selected and scanned at an isotropic resolution of 14.16 μm. The sample was assigned to 3 groups (n = 10) with respect to the root length and degree of curvature of the mesial root according to the system used for the root canal preparation: Reciproc, WaveOne, and BioRaCe. Second and third scans were taken after the root canals were prepared up to ISO sizes 25 and 40, respectively. The matched images of the mesial canals, before and after preparation, were examined from the furcation level to the apex to evaluate the amount of hard tissue debris (%). Data were statistically compared using a general linear model for repeated-measures with a significance level set at 5%. RESULTS: Instrumentation systems per se did not influence the amount of hard tissue accumulation (P > .05), whereas a significant reduction in the percentage of hard tissue debris was observed after sequential enlargement in all groups (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: None of the systems yielded root canals completely free from packed hard tissue debris. The increased final apical size resulted in significantly less debris accumulation for both reciprocating and rotary systems.
Authors: Andrea F Campello; Marília F Marceliano-Alves; José F Siqueira; Simone C Fonseca; Ricardo T Lopes; Flávio R F Alves Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2021-04-26 Impact factor: 3.573