Instrument Design May Influence Bacterial Reduction During Root Canal Preparation.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the bacterial reduction promoted by ProTaper Next and Twisted File by comparing to ProTaper Universal and manual technique. Sixty distobuccal root canals of maxillary molars sterilized with ethylene oxide were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis broth culture. After incubation for 21 days, bacterial samples were collected and cultured on m-Enterococcus agar plates. The root canals were divided into 4 groups, according to the system used for instrumentation: ProTaper Next, Twisted File, ProTaper Universal, and crown down manual technique. Other 8 uncontaminated root canals were control asepsis. Bacterial samples were collected immediately and 7 days after instrumentation. The bacterial reduction was calculated and then made intragroup analysis by paired t-test and intergroup analysis by ANOVA and Tukey tests, all at 5% significance. All techniques significantly reduced the bacterial number in the root canal (p<0.05). ProTaper Next and Twisted File resulted in more bacterial reduction than ProTaper Universal and manual technique (p<0.05). ProTaper Next and Twisted File were similar (p>0.05). It can be concluded that ProTaper Next and Twisted File promote a higher bacterial reduction than Protaper Universal and manual technique.

Instrument Design May Influence Bacterial Reduction During Root Canal Preparation

Abstract The aim of this study was to evaluate the bacterial reduction promoted by ProTaper Next and Twisted File by comparing to ProTaper Universal and manual technique. Sixty distobuccal root canals of maxillary molars sterilized with ethylene oxide were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis broth culture. After incubation for 21 days, bacterial samples were collected and cultured on m-Enterococcus agar plates. The root canals were divided into 4 groups, according to the system used for instrumentation: ProTaper Next, Twisted File, ProTaper Universal, and crown down manual technique. Other 8 uncontaminated root canals were control asepsis. Bacterial samples were collected immediately and 7 days after instrumentation. The bacterial reduction was calculated and then made intragroup analysis by paired t-test and intergroup analysis by ANOVA and Tukey tests, all at 5% significance. All techniques significantly reduced the bacterial number in the root canal (p<0.05). ProTaper Next and Twisted File resulted in more bacterial reduction than ProTaper Universal and manual technique (p<0.05). ProTaper Next and Twisted File were similar (p>0.05). It can be concluded that ProTaper Next and Twisted File promote a higher bacterial reduction than Protaper Universal and manual technique.

Resumo A proposta deste estudo foi avaliar a redução bacteriana promovida pelos sistemas ProTaper Next e Twisted File comparando-os ao sistema ProTaper Universal e técnica manual. Sessenta raízes disto vestibulares de molares superiores esterilizadas com óxido de etileno foram contaminadas com Enterococcus faecalis. Após incubação por 21 dias, amostras foram coletas e cultivadas em m-Enterococcus agar. Os canais foram divididos em 4 grupos de acordo com o sistema de instrumentação: ProTaper Next, Twisted File, ProTaper Universal, e técnica manual crown-down. Outros 8 canais não contaminados foram utilizados como controle de assepsia. Amostra bacteriana foi coletada imediatamente após o prepare e aos 7 dias. A redução bacteriana foi calculada, e então feita a análise intergrupos utilizando teste t-pareado, e análise entre grupos utilizando os testes ANOVA e Tukey, todos com 5% de significância. Todas as técnicas reduziram significantemente o número de bactérias no canal radicular (p<0.05). ProTaper Next e Twisted File resultaram em maior redução bacteriana que ProTaper Universal e técnica manual (p<0.05). ProTaper Next e Twisted File foram semelhantes (p>0.05). Pode-se concluir que ProTaper Next e Twisted File promovem maior redução bacteriana que Protaper Universal e técnica manual.