The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 18 , ISSUE 12 ( December, 2017 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel–titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study

Prem P Kar, Sandhya A Khasnis, Krisnamurthy H Kidiyoor

Citation Information : Kar PP, Khasnis SA, Kidiyoor KH. Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel–titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017; 18 (12):1135-1143.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-2189

Published Online: 01-12-2017

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2017; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Aim

The aim of the study was to compare the cleaning efficacy (debris and smear layer removal) of two multifile rotary systems (MTwo and Silk) and two single-file rotary systems (F6 Skytaper and NeoNiTi).

Materials and methods

Eighty mesial canals of mandibular first molars were cleaned and shaped using four nickel–titanium (NiTi) rotary instruments to size # 25 and 3% NaOCl and 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). Samples were randomly divided into four equal groups (n = 20) according to instrumentation: Group I, Mtwo; group II, Silk; group III, F6 Skytaper; group IV, NeoNiTi. Samples were split longitudinally and examined under scanning electron microscope (SEM) for debris and smear layer removal in coronal, middle, and apical thirds of each root canal.

Results

F6 skytaper and Mtwo groups showed significantly higher debris removal than Silk and NeoNiTi groups in apical third of root canal as well as when compared with NeoNiTi group in middle third. F6 Skytaper group showed significantly higher debris and smear layer removal than Silk group in coronal third. There was statistically significant difference among all thirds of root canal in terms of debris removal in Silk and NeoNiTi groups. There was statistically significant difference among all thirds of root canal in F6 Skytaper and NeoNiTi groups in terms of smear layer removal.

Conclusion

F6 Skytaper single-file rotary instrumentation showed the maximum cleaning efficacy followed by Mtwo multifile rotary instrumentation in all thirds of root canal.

Clinical significance

F6 Skytaper rotary instrument is most efficient followed by Mtwo rotary instrument among all rotary instruments.

How to cite this article

Kar PP, Khasnis SA, Kidiyoor KH. Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy using Four Novel Nickel-titanium Rotary Instruments: An in vitro Scanning Electron Microscope Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2017;18(12):1135-1143.


PDF Share
  1. The smear layer in endodontics – a review. Int Endod J 2010 Jan;43(1):2-15.
  2. Disinfection by endodontic irrigants and dressings of experimentally infected dentinal tubules. Endod Dent Traumatol 1990 Aug;6(4):142-149.
  3. Influence of smear layer on depth of penetration of three endodontic sealers: an SEM study. Endod Dent Traumatol 1998 Aug;14(4):191-195.
  4. Clinical implication of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002 Dec;94(6):658-666.
  5. Consensus report of the European Society of Endodontology on quality guidelines for endodontic treatment. Int Endod J 1994 May;27(3):115-124.
  6. An overview of nickel-titanium alloys used in dentistry. Int Endod J 2000 Jul;33(4):297-310.
  7. Comparative 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):203-212.
  8. Microscopic evaluation of cleaning efficiency of three different Nickel-titanium rotary instruments. Iranian Endod J 2010 Autumn;5(4):174-178.
  9. An in vitro study on cleaning efficiency of Mtwo and BioRace rotary nickel-titanium instruments. Health 2013 Dec;5(12):2045-2050.
  10. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2004 Dec;37(12):832-839.
  11. A case featuring Mani Silk. Endod Prac US. 2015 May.
  12. F360 and F6 Skytaper: SEM evaluation of cleaning efficiency. Ann Stomatol (Roma) 2015 Jul-Dec;6(3-4):69-74.
  13. New approach to single file endodontics: neoniti rotary file system. Int J Adv Case Reports 2015 Aug;2(16):1030-1032.
  14. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971 Aug;32(2):271-275.
  15. Effectiveness of different irrigation techniques on smear layer removal in apical thirds of mesial root canals of permanent mandibular first molar: a scanning electron microscopic study. J Conserv Dent 2015 Jul-Aug;18(4):321-326.
  16. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997 May;23(5):301-306.
  17. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of GT rotary instruments. Int Endod J 2002 May;35(5):422-427.
  18. Shaping and cleaning the root canal system: a scanning electron microscopic evaluation of a new instrumentation and irrigation technique. J Endod 1999 Dec;25(12):800-803.
  19. Light and scanning electron microscopic evaluation of Glyde File Prep in smear layer removal. Int Endod J 2003 May;36(5):336-343.
  20. Mechanical preparation of root canals: shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Topics 2005 Mar;10(1):30-76.
  21. Evaluation of Glyde File Prep in combination with sodium hypochlorite as a root canal irrigant. J Endod 2002 Apr;28(4):300-303.
  22. A Comparative SEM investigation of smear layer remaining on dentinal walls by three rotary NiTi files with different cross sectional designs in moderately curved canals. J Clin Diagn Res 2015 Mar;9(3):ZC43-ZC47.
  23. Effects of root canal preparation on apical geometry assessed by micro computed tomography. J Endod 2009 Jul;35(7):1056-1059.
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.