Comparison of cleaning effectiveness of single rotary file OneShape and reciprocating F2 Protaper with Protaper Universal sequence: A SEM analysis

Debridement Ability of TruNatomy, S-One Plus, and Other Single File Systems

BACKGROUND: Rotary nickel titanium instrument are an essential part of endodontic treatment, it is important to compare the root canal cleaning ability of these instruments. AIM: This study aimed to compare the amount of smear and debris layer remained following the use of four rotary instruments with an irrigant solution: TruNatomy (TRN), Protaper Next (PTN), S-One Plus and Wave One Gold (WOG). METHODS: A total of 80 extracted mandibular premolars were used and decoronated to the cemento-enamel junction. The roots were randomly divided into four groups of 20 specimens each. The roots were instrumented according to the manufacturer’s instructions of each file, the root canals were irrigated with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), Ethylene-diaminete-traacetic acid (EDTA) and Normal saline with each file use, two grooves were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces by disc to facilitate vertical splitting with a chisel. The presence of the smear layer and the debris layer were evaluated under Scanning Electron Microscope. RESULTS: Trunatomy remove the smear layer substantially better than PTN and S-one Plus. Wave one gold significantly removes smear layer better PTN. The amount of debris remained in TruNatomy group was significantly lower than other groups, all experimental files significantly removes the smear layer and debris layer better in the middle and coronal thirds compared to apical third. CONCLUSION: TruNatomy showed better cleaning capacity than all other experimental groups and all experimental groups demonstrated better cleanliness at the coronal and middle third of the roots.

Evaluation of Residual Debris and Smear layer After Root Canal Preparation by Three Different Methods: A Scanning Electron Microscopy Study

Introduction

This study investigated the amount of debris and smear layer remaining followed chemomechanical preparation using three systems: ProTaper Universal, reciprocating SafeSider, and hand K-Flexofiles with scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Materials and Methods

Sixty-five mandibular molars with mesiobuccal canal curvature (25 to 40°) were extracted and divided into one control group (n=5), and three experimental groups (n=20) according to the preparation method; K-Flexofile, ProTaper Universal and SafeSider instruments. All canals were irrigated with 3 ml of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite solution and 3 mL of 17% EDTA. Subsequently, the canals were irrigated with 5 ml of normal saline. Then the teeth were examined under the scanning electron microscope (SEM). Kruskal-Wallis, Dunn-Q Bonferroni, and Friedman tests were used for statistical analysis of results.

Results

To assess the accumulation of debris, statistically significant differences were observed only in the coronal area among ProTaper Universal, SafeSider, K-Flexofile, and the control group. (P=0.029). To evaluate the residual smear layer amount, statistically significant differences were observed only in the coronal and middle areas, following the preparation of the canals using ProTaper Universal, SafeSider, and hand K-Flexofiles and control groups (P=0.019).

Conclusions

Based on the present in vitro study, we can declare that the canals were utterly cleaned of debris and smear layer in none of the groups. Manual Flexofile and ProTaper Universal groups result in cleaner canal walls than reciprocal SafeSider, in the coronal and middle thirds.