Flávio R F Alves1, Pâmella L Paiva2, Marília F Marceliano-Alves2, Laura J Cabreira2, Kenio C Lima3, José F Siqueira2, Isabela N Rôças2, José C Provenzano2. 1. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. Electronic address: flavioferreiraalves@gmail.com. 2. Department of Endodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, Estácio de Sá University, Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 3. Department of Preventive Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Norte, Natal, Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study used a multipurpose analytic approach to compare the levels of apically extruded bacterial and hard tissue debris as well as intracanal bacterial reduction after root canal preparation with either XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) or Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) instruments. METHODS: Distobuccal canals from extracted maxillary molars were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis and randomly distributed into 2 groups according to the instrumentation system: the XP-endo Shaper or Reciproc. Teeth were mounted in an apparatus that simulates the apical resistance offered by the periapical tissues and permitted to collect debris extruded during preparation. Saline was used as the irrigant during preparation, and all treatment procedures were performed inside a cabinet under a controlled temperature of 37°C. DNA extracts from samples taken from the canal before and after preparation were subjected to quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction for E. faecalis counting. The volume of extruded debris was evaluated by micro-computed tomographic imaging. DNA was extracted from the extruded hard tissue debris and analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Mechanical intracanal bacterial reduction was significantly more pronounced when using the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). Although both instruments produced a similar volume of extruded debris (P > .05), extruded bacteria counts were significantly lower with Reciproc than the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). No correlation was observed between the extruded bacterial counts and debris volume. CONCLUSIONS: Although bacterial extrusion was lower with Reciproc, the intracanal bacterial reduction was higher with the XP-endo Shaper. Both techniques produced a similar volume of hard tissue debris extrusion.
INTRODUCTION: This study used a multipurpose analytic approach to compare the levels of apically extruded bacterial and hard tissue debris as well as intracanal bacterial reduction after root canal preparation with either XP-endo Shaper (FKG Dentaire, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland) or Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) instruments. METHODS: Distobuccal canals from extracted maxillary molars were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis and randomly distributed into 2 groups according to the instrumentation system: the XP-endo Shaper or Reciproc. Teeth were mounted in an apparatus that simulates the apical resistance offered by the periapical tissues and permitted to collect debris extruded during preparation. Saline was used as the irrigant during preparation, and all treatment procedures were performed inside a cabinet under a controlled temperature of 37°C. DNA extracts from samples taken from the canal before and after preparation were subjected to quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction for E. faecalis counting. The volume of extruded debris was evaluated by micro-computed tomographic imaging. DNA was extracted from the extruded hard tissue debris and analyzed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. RESULTS: Mechanical intracanal bacterial reduction was significantly more pronounced when using the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). Although both instruments produced a similar volume of extruded debris (P > .05), extruded bacteria counts were significantly lower with Reciproc than the XP-endo Shaper (P < .001). No correlation was observed between the extruded bacterial counts and debris volume. CONCLUSIONS: Although bacterial extrusion was lower with Reciproc, the intracanal bacterial reduction was higher with the XP-endo Shaper. Both techniques produced a similar volume of hard tissue debris extrusion.