www.sbdmj.com - Stomatologija - Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal

Summary

Aim To compare in vitro the cleanliness of root canal walls following automated or manual instrumentation.

Methodology Thirty extracted human maxillary central incisors, maxillary and mandibular canines and premolars with single root canals were used in this study. The teeth were divided into two groups. In group 1 (20 teeth) automated canal preparation was performed using Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET). In group 2 (10 teeth) manual instrumentation was performed with K-Flexofiles. Irrigation was performed using alternately 3.00% NaOCl and 18% EDTA, followed by rinsing with saline. The roots were split longitudinally into halves and the canals examined using a scanning electron microscope. The presence of debris and smear layer was recorded at coronal, middle and apical thirds of root canals using a four-step scoring scale. Mean scores for debris and smear layer were calculated and statistically analysed for significance (P < 0.05) between and within groups, using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and Friedman nonparametric tests.

Results At coronal and middle thirds the root canals prepared with manual instrumentation had significantly less surface debris on the canal walls compared with canals prepared with AET (p<0.05). At apical third root canals prepared with manual instrumentation had significantly more debris compared with AET group. The amount of smear layer was greater in the apical than in the coronal and middle thirds of the root and significantly less amount was in the AET group (P<0.05).

Conclusions Complete cleanliness was not achieved by any of the techniques and instruments investigated. It may be inferred that the choice between AET and hand instrumentation should be based on factors other than the amount of root canal debridement, which does not vary high significantly according to the instruments used.

Key words: Anatomic Endodontic Technology, cleaning efficacy, EDTA, endodontics, K-Flexofiles, root canals, root canal instrumentation, scanning electron microscopy, sodium hypochlorite.

Received: 10 07 2006

Accepted for publishing: 26 09 2006

*Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania

Saulius Drukteinis* – D.D.S.

Irena Balciuniene* – D.D.S., PhD, Hab. Dr., Professor, Director of Institute of Odontology

Address correspondence to Saulius Drukteinis, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Zalgirio 115, 08217 Vilnius, Lithuania.

E-mail: saulius.drukteinis@gmail.com



	Baltic Dental and Maxillofacial Journal

September, 2006, Vol. 8, No. 3 CONTENTS SCIENTIFIC ARTICLES Evaluation of diametral tensile strength and knoop microhardness of five nanofilled composites in dentin and enamel shades 67-69 A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles 70-75 Factors related to apical root resorption of maxillary incisors in orthodontic patients 76-79 Effect of the lower third molars on the lower dental arch crowding 80-84 Changes in the periodontal condition after replacement of swaged crowns by metal 85-87 Surgical lengthening of the clinical tooth crown 88-95 The relationship between blood serum lipids and periodontal condition 96-100 © 2006 Stomatologija		Stomatologija 2006; 8 (3): 70-75 468 KB A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles Saulius Drukteinis, Irena Balciuniene Summary Aim To compare in vitro the cleanliness of root canal walls following automated or manual instrumentation. Methodology Thirty extracted human maxillary central incisors, maxillary and mandibular canines and premolars with single root canals were used in this study. The teeth were divided into two groups. In group 1 (20 teeth) automated canal preparation was performed using Anatomic Endodontic Technology (AET). In group 2 (10 teeth) manual instrumentation was performed with K-Flexofiles. Irrigation was performed using alternately 3.00% NaOCl and 18% EDTA, followed by rinsing with saline. The roots were split longitudinally into halves and the canals examined using a scanning electron microscope. The presence of debris and smear layer was recorded at coronal, middle and apical thirds of root canals using a four-step scoring scale. Mean scores for debris and smear layer were calculated and statistically analysed for significance (P < 0.05) between and within groups, using the Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon and Friedman nonparametric tests. Results At coronal and middle thirds the root canals prepared with manual instrumentation had significantly less surface debris on the canal walls compared with canals prepared with AET (p<0.05). At apical third root canals prepared with manual instrumentation had significantly more debris compared with AET group. The amount of smear layer was greater in the apical than in the coronal and middle thirds of the root and significantly less amount was in the AET group (P<0.05). Conclusions Complete cleanliness was not achieved by any of the techniques and instruments investigated. It may be inferred that the choice between AET and hand instrumentation should be based on factors other than the amount of root canal debridement, which does not vary high significantly according to the instruments used. Key words: Anatomic Endodontic Technology, cleaning efficacy, EDTA, endodontics, K-Flexofiles, root canals, root canal instrumentation, scanning electron microscopy, sodium hypochlorite. Received: 10 07 2006 Accepted for publishing: 26 09 2006 Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania Saulius Drukteinis – D.D.S. Irena Balciuniene* – D.D.S., PhD, Hab. Dr., Professor, Director of Institute of Odontology Address correspondence to Saulius Drukteinis, Institute of Odontology, Faculty of Medicine, Vilnius University, Zalgirio 115, 08217 Vilnius, Lithuania. E-mail: saulius.drukteinis@gmail.com