The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 6 ( November-December, 2013 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study

Sangeetha Vallikanthan, K Balakoti Reddy, Shreemoy Dash, Sowmya Kallepalli, N Chakrapani, Vamsi Kalepu

Citation Information : Vallikanthan S, Reddy KB, Dash S, Kallepalli S, Chakrapani N, Kalepu V. A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013; 14 (6):1028-1035.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1445

Published Online: 01-12-2013

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


Abstract

Objectives

The present study was conducted to compare the cleaning efficacy (debris and smear layer removal) of hand and two NiTi rotary instrumentation systems (K3 and ProTaper).

Materials and methods

Sixty single rooted human maxillary anterior teeth decoronated at the cementoenamel junction were used. All the specimens were divided into four groups of 15 teeth each, group I—ProTaper rotary instrumentation done, group II—K3 rotary instrumentation done, group III—Stainless steel K-file instrumentation done, group IV—root canal irrigation without instrumentation. Root canal preparation was done in a crown down manner and 3% sodium hypochlorite was used as irrigant after each file followed by final rinse with 5 ml of 17% EDTA solution, then specimens were scanning electron microscopic (SEM) examination.

Results

Statistical analysis was done using one-way ANOVA followed by post hoc Tukey's HSD test. Group I showed highly statistical significant difference compared to other groups. There was no statistically significant difference considering smear layer at any levels among the groups with no smear layer formation in group IV.

Conclusion

ProTaper rotary instrumentation showed the maximum cleaning efficacy followed by K3 rotary instrumentation in the coronal, middle and apical thirds of the root canal.

Clinical significance

ProTaper rotary instruments are more efficient than hand and K3 rotary instruments during root canal treatment.

How to cite this article

Reddy KB, Dash S, Kallepalli S, Vallikanthan S, Chakrapani N, Kalepu V. A Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy (Debris and Smear Layer Removal) of Hand and Two NiTi Rotary Instrumentation Systems (K3 and ProTaper): A SEM Study. J Contemp Dent Pract 2013;14(6):1028-1035.


PDF Share
  1. Clinical implications of the smear layer in endodontics: a review. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2002;94:658-666.
  2. Smear layer production by three rotary reamers with different cutting blade designs in straight root canals: a scanning electron microscopic study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2003;96:601-607.
  3. Evaluation of apical debris removal using various sizes and tapers of Profile GT files. J Endod 2004;30:425-428.
  4. The removal of smear layer using Quantec system: a study using the scanning electron microscope. Int Endodontic J 1999;32:217-224.
  5. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic hand pieces and hand instruments: A comparative scanning electron microscopic Investigation. J Endod 1997;23:301-306.
  6. Endodontic Practice. 11th ed. Varghese Publication 1991;210-215.
  7. Scanning electron microscope study on the efficacy of root canal wall debridement of hand versus light speed instrumentation. Int Endod J 1999;32:484-493.
  8. Cleaning and shaping the root canal. Dent Clin North Am 1874;18:269-296.
  9. Current developments in rotary root canal instruments technology and clinical use: A review. Quint Int 2010;41(6):479-488.
  10. Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe and cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severly curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2004;37:239-248.
  11. com/products/endodontics/endodontic-files/protaper%C2%AE-universal-treatment-rotary.
  12. The ProTaper Tech. Endodontic Topics 2005;10:187-190.
  13. K3 Endo, ProTaper and Profile Systems: breakage and distortion in severely curved rots of molars. J Endod 2004;30:234-237.
  14. A comparative study of root canal preparation with HERO 642 and Quantec SC rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2001;34:538-546.
  15. Glossary. Contemporary terminology for endodontics. 6th ed. American Association of Endodontists. 1998. p. 1-51.
  16. Evaluation of Glyde File Prep in combination with sodium hypochlorite as a root canal irrigant. J Endod 2002;28:300-303.
  17. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod 1975;1:238-242.
  18. Cleaning and shaping the root canal system. Cohen S, Burns RC, Eds. pathways of the pulp, 6th ed. St. Louis, USA: Mosby year book 1994. p. 179-218.
  19. Scanning electron microscopic investigations of the smear layer on root canal walls. J Endod 1984;10:477-484.
  20. Smear layer removal effects on apical leakage. J Endod 1986;12(1):21-27.
  21. bacterial retention in canal walls in vitro effect of smear layer. J Endod 1994;20:78-82.
  22. A comparative study of root canal preparation using profile 0.04 and light speed rotary NiTi instruments. Int Endod J 2002;35:37-46.
  23. Effects of rotary instrument and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores. A SEM study. Int Endod Journal 2002;35:582-589.
  24. The effect of tubule orientation and removal of smear layer by root canal instrumentation: a scanning electron microscopic study. Int Endod Journal 1987;23:163.
  25. Efficiency of rotary NiTi flexmaster instruments compared with stainless steel hand K-Flexofile. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and instrumentation results in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod Journal 2002; 35:514-521.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.