The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 17 , ISSUE 7 ( July, 2016 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer and Debris on the Canal Walls prepared with a Combination of Hand and Rotary ProTaper Technique using Scanning Electron Microscope

Sandeep Prakash, S Kiran, Pujari R Siddharth, Supradip Saha, Naiza E Geojan, Mookambika Ramachandran

Citation Information : Prakash S, Kiran S, Siddharth PR, Saha S, Geojan NE, Ramachandran M. Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer and Debris on the Canal Walls prepared with a Combination of Hand and Rotary ProTaper Technique using Scanning Electron Microscope. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016; 17 (7):574-581.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1892

Published Online: 00-07-2016

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2016; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Introduction

The effect of smear layer and debris on the success rate of endodontic treatment has not yet been definitely determined. So the present study was aimed to evaluate the amount of smear layer and debris on the canal walls prepared with a combination of hand and rotary ProTaper technique using NaOCl and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) alternately as root canal irrigants using scanning electron microscope (SEM).

Materials and methods

Eighty intact freshly extracted human permanent mandibular premolar teeth were collected and randomly divided equally into four groups. In group I canals were prepared with hand K-Flexofiles; group II with rotary ProTaper instruments; group III with rotary ProTaper instruments and final instrumentation was done with hand K-Flexofile; group IV with rotary ProTaper instruments and final instrumentation was done with RC-Prep and irrigated with 1 mL of normal saline. In all groups canals were irrigated using NaOCl and EDTA alternately. After instrumentation, the teeth were prepared for SEM examination using five-score indices for debris and smear layer at coronal, middle, and apical third levels. Statistical analysis was performed using chi-square test (p<0.05) and Kruskal-Wallis test (p<0.05).

Results

Statistically significant difference was observed between the groups in cleaning the apical third. Groups I and III showed better canal cleanliness compared to group II. The use of EDTA and NaOCl in group III was more effective in removing debris and smear layer compared to EDTA and normal saline in group IV. Regardless of the instrumentation technique employed and the irrigant used, the cleaning ability decreased in the apical third, resulting in higher debris and smear layer scores compared to coronal and middle third levels.

Conclusion

None of the instrumentation techniques in the present study could completely eliminate the smear layer and debris from the canal walls. Instrumentation of the canals with hand files after automated rotary preparation could result in cleaner canal walls.

Clinical significance

Alternate irrigation with NaOCl and EDTA is effective in the removal of debris and smear layer in the coronal and middle level, but the effectiveness in the apical third is less.

How to cite this article

Kiran S, Prakash S, Siddharth PR, Saha S, Geojan NE, Ramachandran M. Comparative Evaluation of Smear Layer and Debris on the Canal Walls prepared with a Combination of Hand and Rotary ProTaper Technique using Scanning Electron Microscope. J Contemp Dent Pract 2016;17(7):574-581.


PDF Share
  1. In vivo debridement efficacy of ultrasonic irrigation following hand-rotary instrumentation in human mandibular molars. J Endod 2005 Mar;31(3):166-170.
  2. Scanning electron microscopy study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus lightspeed instrumentation. Int Endod J 1999 Nov;32(6):484-493.
  3. The effectiveness of different endodontic irrigation procedures on the removal of smear layer: a scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J 1989 Jan;22(1):21-28.
  4. Efficiency of rotary Ni-Ti K3 instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2003 Mar;36(3):208-217.
  5. Scanning electron microscopic study of the efficacy of various irrigating solutions. J Endod 1975 Apr;1(4):127-135.
  6. The effectiveness of three irrigating solutions on root canal cleaning after hand and mechanical preparation. Int Endod J 1997 Jan;30(1):51-57.
  7. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative scanning electron microscopy investigation. J Endod 1977 May;23(5):301-306.
  8. Glossary contemporary terminology for endodontics. 6th ed. Chicago (IL): American Association of Endodontists; 1998.
  9. Consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology on quality guidelines for endodontic treatment. Int Endod J 1994 May;27(3):115-124.
  10. Chelating agents in root canal treatment: mode of action and indications for their use. Int Endod J 2003 Dec;36(12):810-830.
  11. A scanning electron microscopic comparison of high volume final flush with several irrigating solutions: Part 3. J Endod 1983 Apr;9(4):137-142.
  12. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975 Jul;1(7):238-242.
  13. Mechanical effectiveness of root canal irrigation. J Endod 1983 Nov;9(11):475-479.
  14. An SEM study of the effects of different irrigation sequences and ultrasonics. Int Endod J 1991 Nov;24(6):308-316.
  15. Smear layer removed with different concentrations of EDTA-ethylenediamine mixtures. J Endod 1993 May;19(5):228-231.
  16. Efficacy of final irrigation – a scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Endod 2000 Jun;26(6):355-358.
  17. Scanning Electron Microscopic comparisons of the efficacy of various methods of root canal preparation. J Endod 1980 Nov;6(11):815-822.
  18. Effectiveness of four methods for preparing root canals: a scanning electron microscopic evaluation. J Endod 1988;14(7):340-345.
  19. The effects of dentin pretreatment on the adhesion of root-canal sealers. Int Endod J 2002 Oct;35(10):859-866.
  20. A histologic comparison of hand and Ni-Ti rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998;24:286.
  21. The effect of endosonic and hand manipulation on the amount of root canal material extruded. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1982 Jun;53(6):611-613.
  22. Canal wall planning by engine-driven Ni-Ti instruments compared with stainless steel hand instruments. J Endod 1997 Mar;23(3):170-173.
  23. Apical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. J Endod 1998 Mar;24(3):180-183.
  24. A scanning electron microscopy study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of GT rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2002 May;35(5):422-427.
  25. Failure of Profile instrument used with high and low torque motors. Int Endod J 2001 Sep;34(6):471-475.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.