Reddy J M V Raghavendra, Latha Prasanna, Gowda Basavana, Manvikar Varadendra, Vijayalaxmi D Benal, Ponangi Kalyana Chakravarthi
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Navodaya Dental College & Hospital, Raichur, Karnataka, India.
Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Krishnadevaraya Dental College, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
J Int Oral Health. 2014 Feb;6(1):89-94. Epub 2014 Feb 26.
Predictable successful endodontic therapy depends on correct diagnosis, effective cleaning, shaping and disinfection of the root canals and adequate obturation. Irrigation serves as a flush to remove debris, tissue solvent and lubricant from the canal irregularities; however these irregularities can restrict the complete debridement of root canal by mechanical instrumentation.Various types of hand and rotary instruments are used for the preparation of the root canal system to obtain debris free canals. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the amount of smear layer and debris removal on canal walls following the using of manual Nickel-Titanium (NiTi) files compared with rotary ProTaperNiTi files using a Scanning Electron Microscope in two individual groups.
MATERIALS & METHODS: A comparative study consisting of 50 subjects randomized into two groups - 25 subjects in Group A (manual) and 25 subjects in Group B (rotary) was undertaken to investigate and compare the effects of smear layer and debris between manual and rotary NiTi instruments. Chi square test was used to find the significance of smear layer and debris removal in the coronal, middle and apical between Group A and Group B.
Both systems of Rotary ProTaperNiTi and manual NiTi files used in the present study, did not create completely clean root canals. Manual NiTi files produced significantly less smear layer and debris compared to Rotary ProTaperNiTi instruments. Rotary instruments were less time consuming when compared to manual instruments. Instrument separation was not found to be significant with both the groups.
Both systems of Rotary ProTaperNiTi and manual NiTi files used did not produce completely clean root canals. Manual NiTi files produced significantly less smear layer and debris compared to Rotary protaper instruments. How to cite the article: Reddy JM, Latha P, Gowda B, Manvikar V, Vijayalaxmi DB, Ponangi KC. Smear layer and debris removal using manual Ni-Ti files compared with rotary Protaper Ni-Ti files - An In-Vitro SEM study. J Int Oral Health 2014;6(1):89-94.
可预测的成功牙髓治疗取决于正确的诊断、对根管的有效清理、塑形和消毒以及充分的充填。冲洗用于从根管不规则处清除碎屑、组织溶剂和润滑剂;然而,这些不规则处会限制通过机械预备对根管的彻底清创。各种类型的手动和旋转器械用于根管系统的预备以获得无碎屑的根管。本研究的目的是在两个独立组中,使用扫描电子显微镜评估与旋转ProTaper镍钛锉相比,使用手动镍钛锉后根管壁上的玷污层和碎屑清除量。
进行了一项对比研究,将50名受试者随机分为两组——A组(手动组)25名受试者和B组(旋转组)25名受试者,以研究和比较手动和旋转镍钛器械对玷污层和碎屑的影响。采用卡方检验来确定A组和B组在冠部、中部和根尖部玷污层和碎屑清除的显著性。
本研究中使用的旋转ProTaper镍钛锉和手动镍钛锉系统均未创建完全清洁的根管。与旋转ProTaper镍钛器械相比,手动镍钛锉产生的玷污层和碎屑明显更少。与手动器械相比,旋转器械耗时更少。两组均未发现器械分离有显著性差异。
使用的旋转ProTaper镍钛锉和手动镍钛锉系统均未产生完全清洁的根管。与旋转ProTaper器械相比,手动镍钛锉产生的玷污层和碎屑明显更少。如何引用本文:Reddy JM, Latha P, Gowda B, Manvikar V, Vijayalaxmi DB, Ponangi KC. 与旋转ProTaper镍钛锉相比使用手动镍钛锉清除玷污层和碎屑——一项体外扫描电镜研究。《国际口腔健康杂志》2014年;6(1):89 - 94。