The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 5 ( September-October, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

An in vitro Study to Compare the Effectiveness of F-file with Ultrasonically Activated K-file to Remove Smear Layer by using a Scanning Electron Microscope

B Shiva Kumar, Suresh Shenvi

Citation Information : Kumar BS, Shenvi S. An in vitro Study to Compare the Effectiveness of F-file with Ultrasonically Activated K-file to Remove Smear Layer by using a Scanning Electron Microscope. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (5):825-829.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1410

Published Online: 00-10-2013

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2013; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness of the F-file with an ultrasonically activated #15 K-file in removing the smear layer after biomechanical instrumentation along with irrigation of Saline, NaOCl and with or without a flush of EDTA.

Materials and methods

Sixty decoronated human premolar teeth with a single canal were instrumented with ProTaper using S1, S2 and F1 series to produce the smear layer and randomly divided into two groups. Group A used Ultrasonics and group B used F-file for activation of irrigants respectively. Each group was further divided in to three subgroups consisting of 10 teeth in each as I, II, III consisting of saline, NaOCl, NaOCl and EDTA as irrigants respectively. SEM micrographs were taken and amount of smear layer removal was analyzed by using Chi-square statistics tests.

Results

Most effective smear layer removal was seen only when EDTA was used. There was no statistically significant difference between the groups A and B in removal of smear layer.

Conclusion

There was no increase in smear layer between use of F-file when compared with the Ultrasonically activated K-file.

Clinical significance

The F-file although does not have a superior efficacy than the ultrasonics in removal of smear layer from root canals but when used along with EDTA, can be an effective alternative for the dentists who are unable to bear the initial setup cost of ultrasonics.

How to cite this article

Shenvi S, Kumar BS. An in vitro Study to Compare the Effectiveness of F-file with Ultrasonically Activated K-file to Remove Smear Layer by using a Scanning Electron Microscope. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(5):825-829.


PDF Share
  1. Cleaning and shaping of the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1974;18:269-296.
  2. In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2005 Mar;31(3):166-170.
  3. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990;6:142-149.
  4. The influence of the smeared layer upon dentinal tubule penetration by endodontic filling materials (Part II). J Endod 1987;13:369-374.
  5. Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage. J Endod 1986;12:21-27.
  6. Effect of smear layer on sealing ability of canal obturation: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Endod 2007;33:96-105.
  7. Comparison of the antimicrobial activity of six irrigants on primary endodontic pathogens. J Endod 2005;31:471-473.
  8. Root canal irrigants. J Endod 2006;32:389-398.
  9. Solution of pulp tissue by chemical agents. J Am Dent Assoc 1941;28:223-235.
  10. The effect of dilution and organic matter on the antibacterial property of 5.25% sodium hypochlorite. J Endod 1981;7:128-132.
  11. Scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various irrigation solutions. J Endod 1975;1:127-135.
  12. Bacterial reduction in infected root canals treated with 2.5% NaOCl as an irrigant and calcium hydroxide/camphorated paramonochlorophenol paste as an intracanal dressing. J Endod 2007;33:667-672.
  13. Effects of chemomechanical preparation with 2.5% sodium hypochlorite and intracanal medication with calcium hydroxide on cultivable bacteria in infected root canals. J Endod 2007;33:800-805.
  14. Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde File Prep in smear layer removal. Int Endod J 2003;36:336-343.
  15. Evaluation of Glyde File Prep in combination with sodium hypochlorite as a root canal irrigant. J Endod 2002;28:300-303.
  16. Understanding and evaluating the endodontic file. General Dentistry 2000;48:690-692.
  17. Clinical introduction of a plastic rotary endodontic finishing file. Endod Prac 2007;10:17-20.
  18. A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of the effectiveness of the F-file versus ultrasonic activation of a K-file to remove smear layer. J Endod 2008 Oct;34(10):1243-1245.
  19. Comparison of the efficacy of three chelating agents in smear layer removal. J Endod 2008;34:599-602.
  20. An in vitro comparison of new irrigation and agitation techniques to ultrasonic agitation in removing bacteria from a simulated root canal. Endod 2009;35:1040-1043.
  21. Final rinse optimization: influence of different agitation protocols. J Endod 2010 Feb;36(2):282-285.
  22. Comparison of the efficacy of ‘F-file’ with sonic and ultrasonic debridement to remove artificially placed dentine debris from human root canals – an in vitro study. Endodontology 2010;22(1):39-47.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.