RESUMEN
Orofacial pain is one the commonest chronic oral health disorder. Yet, its complete management is still a researchable matter as it is a disorder which is caused due to various factors. It is very rare is find a single etiology leading to orofacial pain. It often encompasses multiple etiological factors. Hence it is important to understand that not one but multiple healthcare professionals are needed for its successful outcome and thus forming an interprofessional management team becomes important.
RESUMEN
AIM: To compare and evaluate the cleaning ability of two reciprocating systems, that is, WaveOne (WO) and self-adjusting files (SAF) in terms of removal of smear layer using sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) and chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) at apical one-third of the root canal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty-three human maxillary anterior teeth were selected. The canal was instrumented manually up to a number 25 K-file size. WO and SAF were used to prepare the root canals. The following groups were studied: Group 1 using WO:-Group 1a = 5% NaOCl + 17% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA), Group 1b = 2% CHX + 17% EDTA, Group 2 using SAF:-Group 2a = 5% NaOCl + 17% EDTA, Group 2b = 2% CHX + 17% EDTA. All roots were split longitudinally and subjected to scanning electron microscopic. The presence of smear layer apical thirds was evaluated using a 5-score evaluation system. Chi-square tests were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: The results showed no significant difference in smear layer removal among both reciprocating system and among the irrigants. Group 2a exhibited the best results and was close to significant difference in score (P > 0.05). The NaOCl + EDTA solution used in Group 1a and Group 2a could effectively remove the smear layer in most of the specimens. However, SAF was more effective than WO in the apical third of the canal. CONCLUSION: The results obtained from the present study suggest that using the SAF system and continuous irrigation action with NaOCl and EDTA solution could overcome the difficulty of removing smear layer even in hard-to-reach regions of the root canal.
RESUMEN
AIM: To investigate the influence of cervical preflaring on apical file size determination using four different rotary instruments. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty root canals from extracted human maxillary premolars with complete root formation, straight roots were used for the study. Access opening was done and the working length established with 8 no K-file for each canal. Teeth were randomly divided into five groups of 10 canals. In Group 1--no preflaring was done and acted as control and in Groups 2, 3, 4 and 5 cervical and middle third preflaring of the root canals were done using Gates Glidden drills, Protaper instruments, Race instruments and Galaxy files respectively. After preflaring, the apical file size determination was done and the initial apical file (IAF) was fixed at the working length. Teeth were sectioned transversally 1 mm from the apex, with the binding file in position. The samples were imaged under stereomicroscope with 30* magnification. Root canal and file maximum diameters were recorded for each sample. The readings were subjected to analysis of variance test and Scheffe's multiple comparison test. RESULTS: Preflaring with Race instruments lead to most accurate determination of the IAF. It was followed by Protaper, Galaxy files and Gates Glidden drills. CONCLUSION: Traditional method of apical size determination may lead to a substantial underestimation of actual canal size. Cervical preflaring increases the accuracy of apical size determination. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Thus, cervical preflaring is recommended before selection of IAF as it increases the accuracy of apical size determination.
