RESUMO
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effectiveness of the NaviTip FX, brush-covered irrigation needle, in removing calcium hydroxide from the root canal. STUDY DESIGN: Thirty single-rooted teeth were randomly divided into three groups: A - irrigation with a hypodermic needle inserted as far as possible without binding and activation with #30 K-type file; B - Irrigation with a hypodermic needle without activation; C - irrigation with NaviTip FX needle. Sodium hypoclorite 1% was used in irrigation. The root canals were examined trough scanning electron microscopy. Calcium hydroxide removal was recorded at 1, 5, and 10mm from the working length (WL) and the data were analysed using one-way ANOVA test (p<0.05). RESULTS: NaviTip FX and hypodermic needle activated with #30K-type file showed lower score at 10 and 5mm with no significant difference between them. Comparison within groups did not show significant differences. All groups showed significantly better smear layer removal at 5 and 10 mm from the WL. CONCLUSION: The apical third (1mm) of the root canal was found to be the most critical site for Ca(OH)2 removal. Key words:Calcium hydroxide, irrigation, scanning electron microscope, NaviTip FX.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to compare the increase of the root canal area after instrumentation with EndoSequence or ProTaper rotary systems. METHODS: Twenty-two mesial root canals from mandibular molars were instrumented. Teeth were mounted on a base, numbered, and divided into 2 groups; teeth from 1-11 (PT group) were instrumented by using the ProTaper system, and teeth from 12-22 (ES group) were instrumented by using the EndoSequence system. Cone beam computed tomography was performed on all teeth before and after instrumentation. Measurements at 3, 5, and 7 mm as well as differences in instrument performance were statistically compared by the Student t test at 5% significance level. RESULTS: Both systems increased significantly the root canal area (P < .05) at all levels. Comparison between the rotary systems showed significantly greater increase (P < .05) for EndoSequence at 3 mm, with no statistically significant difference (P < .05) at the other levels. CONCLUSIONS: Both rotary systems increased significantly the root canal area.