[Home ] [Archive]    
:: Main :: About :: Current Issue :: Archive :: Search :: Submit ::
:: Volume 25, Issue 4 (10-2013) ::
J Iran Dent Assoc 2013, 25(4): 235-241 Back to browse issues page
Experimental Study of Smear Layer and Debris Remaining Following the Use of Four Root Canal Preparation Systems Using Scanning Electron Microscopy
Maryam Zare Jahromi1, Mohammad hoseain Fathi2, Saeid Zamiran *3
1- Assistant Professor, Department of Endodontics , School of Dentistry, Islamic Azad University Khorasgan Branch , Isfahan , Iran
2- Professor, Department of Material Engineering , Isfahan University of Technology , Isfahan , Iran
3- Endodontist , saeedzamiran@yahoo.com
Abstract:   (8849 Views)

  Background and Aim: Since the use of rotary nickel titanium instruments is an essential part of endodontic treatment, itis important to compare the root canal cleaning ability of these instruments. The aim of this study was to compare the amount of smear layer and debris remaining following the use of four rotary instruments: MTwo , Pro Taper , Race and BioRaCe .

  Materials and Methods : A total of120 mesiobuccal canals of extracted human first molars with apical root curvature of 10 ° to 20 ° were selected. Working length of all roots was 19 mm. The roots were randomly divided into four groups of 30 specimens. After the preparation of access cavity, the roots were instrumented using rotary instruments according to the manufacturer’s instructions. After each file, the root canal was irrigated with 2.5%sodium hypochlorite. Then the roots were studied under scanning electron microscope. The smear layer and debris scoreswere evaluated by 2 endodontistsusing Schafer and Schlingemann classification. Kruskal -Wallis and Dunn tests were used for statistical analysis of results .

  Results: The amount of smear layer produced by MTwo was lower than the other instrumentation techniques and it was significantly lower than that inBioRaCe system (p<0.05). The amount of debris was also lower in the mentioned group but the difference in this respect between groups was not significant. BioRaCe system had the highest level of remained smear layer while Pro Taper had the highest amount of remained debris .

  Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, it was revealed that MTwo instruments had greater capability of removing smear layer and debris than theBioRaCe system .

Keywords: Root canal preparation/instrumentation, Smear layer, SEM
Full-Text [PDF 440 kb]   (2751 Downloads)    
Type of Study: Orginal | Subject: Endodentics
References
1. Kum KY, Kazemi RB, Cha BY, Zhu Q. Smear layer production of K3 and Profile Ni-Ti rotary instruments in curved root canals: A compara-tive SEM study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral RadiolEndod. 2006 Apr; 101(4):536-41.
2. Pashley DH, Michelich V, Kehl T. Dentin per-meability: Effects of smear layer removal. J Prosthet Dent. 1981 Nov; 46(5):531-7.
3. Yamada RS, Armas A, Goldman M, Lin PS. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of a high volume flushes with several irrigating solu-tions. Part III. J Endod. 1983 Apr; 9(4):137-42.
4. Meryon SD, Brook AM. Penetration of dentine by three oral bacteria in vitro and their associat-ed cytotoxicity. Inter Endod J. 1990 May; 23(3):196-202.
5. Baumgartner JC, Mader CL. A scanning elec-tron microscopic evaluation of four root canal irrigation regimens. J Endod. 1987 Apr; 13(4):147-57.
6. Goldberg F, Abramovich A. Analysis of the ef-fect of EDTAC on the dentinal walls of the root canal. J Endod. 1977 Mar; 3(3):101-5.
7. White RR, Goldman M, Lin P.The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetra-tion by plastic filling materials. Part I. J Endod. 1984 Dec;10(12):558-62.
8. White RR, Goldman M, Lin P. The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetra-tion by endodontic filling materials. Part II. J Endod. 1987 Aug; 13(8):369-74.
9. Oksan T, Aktener BO, Sen BH, Tezel H. The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules. A scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod J. 1993 Sept; 26(5):301-5.
10. Kennedy W, Walker WA, Gough RW. Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage. J En-dod. 1986 Jan: 12(1):21-7.
11. Lim TS, Wee TY, Choi MY, Koh WC, Sae-Lim V. Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde File Prep in smear layer removal. Int Endod J. 2003 May; 36(5):336-43.
12. Shahravan A, Haghdoost AA, Adl A, Rahimi H, Shadifar F. Effect of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod. 2007Feb;33(2):96-105. Review.
13. Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Compara-tive study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J. 2006 Mar; 39(3):203-12.
14. Hülsmann M, Versümer J, Schade M. Acomparative study of Lightspeed, Profile 0.04, Quantec and Hero 642. Int Endod J. 2000 Mar; 33 (2):150. (Abstract).
15. Jeon IS, Spångberg LS, Yoon TC, Kazemi RB, Kum KY. Smear layer production by 3 rotary reamers with different cutting blade designsin straight root canals: A scanning electron micro-scopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod. 2003 Nov; 96(5):601-7.
16. Bűrklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effec-tiveness of two single-file system in severly curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and wave one versus mteo and ProTaper. Int Endod J. 2012 May;45(5):449-61.
17. Foschi F, Nucci C, Montebugnoli L, Marchionni S, Breschi L, Malagnino VA, Prati C. SEM eval-uation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2004 Dec; 37(12):832-9.
18. Paqué F, Musch U, Hülsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and ProTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J. 2005 Jan; 38(1):8-16.
19. Shahravan A, Rahimi H, Eghbal M.J, Movahe-dian A.R, Moradi S. The full reference of the basics root canal preparation’s instruments and methods. 2nd ed. Tehran: Karvar; 1387.
20. Shahi S, Rahimi S, Ghaziani P, Bidar M, Zand V. A comparative SEM investigation of the smear layer following preparation of root canals using nickel titanium rotary and hand instru-ments. J Oral Sci. 2007 Mar, 49(1):47-52.
21. Pashley DH. Smear layer: Physiological con-siderations. Oper Dent. 1984Suppl; 3:13-29.
22. Hulsmann M, Heckendorff M, Lennon A: Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their use. Int En-dod J. 2003 Dec; 36(12):810-830.
23. Belli S, Zhang Y Pereira PN, Pashley DH. Adhesive sealing of the pulp chamber. J Endod. 2001 Aug; 27(8):521-526.
24. Pashley EL, Birdsong NL, Bowman K, Pash-ley DH. Cytotoxic effects of NaOCl on vital tissue. J Endod. 1985 Dec; 11(12):525-528.
25. Bystrom A, Sundqvist G. The antibacterial action of sodium hypochlorite and EDTA in 60 cases of endodontic therapy. lnt Endod. 1985 Jan; 18(1): 35-40.
26. Gutmann JL. Adaptation of injected ther-moplasticized gutta-percha in the absence of the dentinal smear layer. Int Endod. J 1993 Mar; 26(2):87-92.
27. Leonard JE, Gutmann JL, Cuo IY. Apical and coronal seal of roots obturated with a den-tin bonding agent and resin. Int Endod J. 1996 Mar; 29(2): 76-83.
28. Lee FS, Van Cura JE, BeCole E. A compari-son of root surface temperatures using different obturation heat sources. J Endod. 1998 Sept; 24 (9):617-620.
29. Oksan T, Aktener B, Sen B, Tezel H. The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules: A scanning electron microscopic study. lnt Endod J. 26:301, 1993.
30. Sen BH, Piskin B, Baran NB. The effect of tubular penetration of root canal sealers on dye microleakage. Int Endod J. 1996 Jan; 29(1):23-28.
31. Wennberg A, Orstavik D. Adhesion of root canal sealers to bovine dentine and gutta-percha. lnt Endod J. 1990 Jan; 23(1):13-19.
32. Diamond A, Carrel R. The smear layer: A review of Restorative progress. J Pedod. 1984 Spring; 8(3):219-26.
33. Oksan T, Aktener B, Sen B, Tezel H. The penetration of root canal sealers into dentinal tubules: A scanning electron microscopic study. lnt Endod J. 1993 Sep; 26(5):301305.
34. Al-Ali M, Sathom C, Psrashos P. Root canal debridement efficacy of different final irriga-tion protocols. Int Endod J. 2012 Oct; 45(10):898-906.
Send email to the article author

Add your comments about this article
Your username or Email:

CAPTCHA


XML     Print


Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:

Zare Jahromi M, Fathi M H, Zamiran S. Experimental Study of Smear Layer and Debris Remaining Following the Use of Four Root Canal Preparation Systems Using Scanning Electron Microscopy. J Iran Dent Assoc. 2013; 25 (4) :235-241
URL: http://jida.ir/article-1-1507-en.html


Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Volume 25, Issue 4 (10-2013) Back to browse issues page
Journal of Iranian Dental Association

AWT IMAGE

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly

Persian site map - English site map - Created in 0.04 seconds with 30 queries by YEKTAWEB 4463