Cleaning efficiency of anatomic endodontic technology, ProFile System and Manual Instrumentation in oval-shaped root canals: an in vitro study.

AIM: This in vitro study is an attempt to compare the effectiveness in cleaning oval shaped root canals using Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET®), ProFile system® and Manual Instrumentation with K-files. METHODOLOGY: Sixty oval shaped single rooted maxillary and mandibular premolars with straight canals were divided in to three groups. The root canals were, confirmed as being oval shape by means of radiographs made in a buccolingual and mesiodistal direction. Automated canal preparation was performed using Anatomic Endodontic Technology (group 1) and the ProFile system® (group 2). Manual instrumentation (group 3) was performed with k-files. Irrigation was performed using alternatively 3% NaOCl and 17% EDTA, followed by rinsing with normal saline. The roots were split longitudinally into two halves and examined under a scanning electron microscope. The presence of debris and smear layer was recorded at distances 1, 5 and 10 mm from the working length using a three step scoring scale. Mean scores for debris and smear layer was calculated and statistically analyzed for between and within groups significance, using the Kruskal-Wallis nonparametric ANOVA test and Bonferroni's multiple comparison test. RESULTS: At 1, 5 and 10 mm levels the root canals prepared with AET had significantly less surface debris and smear layer on the canal walls as compared to canals prepared with ProFile system® or manual instrumentation. For all three groups significantly lower mean smear layer scores (p < 0.05) were recorded at 5 and 10 mm levels compared with the 1 mm level. Significantly lower mean debris scores (p < 0.05) were also recorded at 5 and 10 mm levels for the AET group whereas no significant differences were found between the three levels for the ProFile system® and manual instrumentation groups. CONCLUSION: Although better instrumentation scores were obtained in canals prepared with AET, complete cleanliness was not achieved with any of the techniques and instruments investigated.

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.

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.