Isfahan University of Medical Sciences

Science Communicator Platform

Stay connected! Follow us on X network (Twitter):
Share this content! On (X network) By
Scanning Electron Microscopic Evaluation of Residual Smear Layer Following Preparation of Curved Root Canals Using Hand Instrumentation or Two Engine-Driven Systems Publisher



Khademi A1 ; Saatchi M1 ; Shokouhi MM2 ; Baghaei B3
Authors
Show Affiliations
Authors Affiliations
  1. 1. Torabinejad Dental Research Center, Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran
  2. 2. Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Shiraz, Iran
  3. 3. Department of Endodontics, Dental School, Rafsanjan University of Medical Sciences, Rafsanjan, Iran

Source: Iranian Endodontic Journal Published:2015


Abstract

Introduction: In this experimental study, the amount of smear layer (SL) remnants in curved root canals after chemomechanical instrumentation with two engine-driven systems or hand instrumentation was evaluated. Methods and Materials: Forty-eight mesiobuccal roots of mandibular first molars with curvatures ranging between 25 and 35 degrees (according to Schneider’s method) were divided into three groups (n=16) which were prepared by either the ProTaper Universal file series, Reciproc single file system or hand instrumentation. The canals were intermittently irrigated with 5.25% NaOCl and 17% (ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid) EDTA, followed by distilled water as the final rinse. The roots were split longitudinally and the apical third of the specimens were evaluated under 2500× magnification with a scanning electron microscope (SEM). The mean scores of the SL were calculated and analyzed using the non-parametric Kruskal- Wallis and Mann-Whitney U tests. Results: The mean scores of the SL were 2.00±0.73, 1.94±0.68 and 1.44±0.63 μm for the ProTaper Universal, Reciproc and hand instrumentation, respectively. Mean score of SL was significantly less in the hand instrumentation group than the ProTaper (P=0.027) and Reciproc (P=0.035) groups. The difference between the two engine-driven systems, however, was not significant (P=0.803). Conclusion: The amount of smear layer in the apical third of curved root canals prepared with both engine-driven systems was similar and greater than the hand instrumentation technique. Complete cleanliness was not attained. © 2015 Iranian Association of Endodontics. All rights reserved.
Other Related Docs