Article Options
Categories


Search


Advanced Search



This service is provided on D[e]nt Publishing standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy. To enquire about a licence to reproduce material from endodonticsjournal.com and/or JofER, click here.
This website is published by D[e]nt Publishing Ltd, Phoenix AZ, US.
D[e]nt Publishing is part of the specialist publishing group Oral Science & Business Media Inc.

Creative Commons License


Recent Articles RSS:
Subscribe to recent articles RSS
or Subscribe to Email.

Blog RSS:
Subscribe to blog RSS
or Subscribe to Email.


Azerbaycan Saytlari

 »  Home  »  Endodontic Articles 7  »  Effects of rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron microscopic study
Effects of rotary instruments and ultrasonic irrigation on debris and smear layer scores: a scanning electron microscopic study
Results.



Mean amounts of smear layer and debris recorded at the 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels in the four test and two control groups are listed in Tables 2 and 3. Of a possible maximum of 5, mean smear layer scores in all six groups at the three levels evaluated ranged from 1.85 0.61 to 3.67 0.84 (Table 2). Significantly higher (P < 0.05) smear layer scores were found at the 3 mm compared to the 9 mm levels in all groups. Between the three ProFile groups (Groups 1–3), no significant differences in smear layer scores were recorded at the three levels examined (Table 2). Similarly, no significant differences in smear layer scores were recorded at the three levels examined between the Lightspeed control group and the two Lightspeed test groups (groups 4–6).
Of a possible maximum of 5, mean debris scores in all six groups at the three levels evaluated ranged from 1.30 0.38 to 2.48 0.95 (Table 3). As for smear layer scores, significantly higher (P < 0.05) debris scores were found at the 3 mm compared to the 9 mm levels in all groups. However, there were no differences in the means at the three levels evaluated between the six groups.
Between the three ProFile groups, no significant differences in debris scores were recorded at the three levels (Table 3). Similarly, no significant differences in smear layer scores were recorded at the three levels examined between the Lightspeed control group and the two Lightspeed test groups. On the basis of these findings, there were no differences in the amounts of smear layer and debris on canal wall prepared with ProFile or Lightspeed instruments.

Table 2. Mean smear layer scores (+ - SD) for the six groups at 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels.

Mean smear layer scores (+ - SD) for the six groups at 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels
*P < 0.05.
Significantly different scores within groups are indicated.


Table 3. Mean debris scores (+ - SD) for the six groups at 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels.

Mean debris scores (+ - SD) for the six groups at 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels
*P < 0.05.
Significantly different scores within groups are indicated.

The effects of ultrasonic energy are studied by grouping all canals together regardless of the rotary technique used. Smear layer and debris scores produced by the stainless steel files (Figs 4, 5) and by the blunt nickel–titanium wires (Figs 6, 7) were then compared to that produced by the two negative control groups (Fig. 8). Overall, significantly higher mean debris scores were recorded at the 3 mm level compared to the 9 mm level for the K-file group, the control group and the Ni–Ti-wire group (Fig. 8). Furthermore, there were significantly higher mean debris scores at the 6 mm level compared to the 3 mm level in the control group.
Significantly higher mean smear layer scores were recorded at the 3 mm level compared to the 9 mm level for the control group and the Ni–Ti-wire group. In addition, significantly higher mean smear layer scores were noted at the 6 mm level compared to the 3 mm level in the control group and the Ni– Ti-wire group (Fig. 8).

Figure 4. SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by Lightspeed and the irrigant then activated using a size 15 stainless steel K-file. Small amounts of debris and complete removal of smear layer is visible (original magnification 400x).

SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by Lightspeed and the irrigant then activated using a size 15 stainless steel K-file

Figure 5. SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by ProFile .04 and the irrigant then activated using a size 15 stainless steel K-file. Large amounts of debris and smear layer were present (original magnification 400x).

SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by ProFile .04 and the irrigant then activated using a size 15 stainless steel K-fileFigure 6. SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by Lightspeed and the irrigant then activated using a blunt Ni-Ti-wire with a diameter of 0.26 mm. The canal   wall is almost completely covered with debris (original magnification 200x).

SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by Lightspeed and the irrigant then activated using a blunt Ni-Ti-wire with a diameter of 0.26 mm

Figure 7. SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by ProFile .04 and the irrigant then activated using a blunt Ni-Ti-wire with a diameter of 0.26 mm. The canal wall is free of debris. Many dentine tubules are open, while the remainder are covered by a thin smear layer (original magnification 200x).

SEM micrograph of an apical area prepared by ProFile .04 and the irrigant then activated using a blunt Ni-Ti-wire with a diameter of 0.26 mm. The canal wall is free of debris



Figure 8. Bar diagrammes showing both mean debris and smear layer scores (+ - SD) at 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels for canals ultrasonicated using K-files, Ni-Ti-wire or without ultrasonic energy (control). Significant differences are indicated as *P <0.05 or as **P <0.01.

Bar diagrammes showing both mean debris and smear layer scores (+ - SD) at 3 mm, 6 mm and 9 mm levels for canals ultrasonicated using K-files, Ni-Ti-wire or without ultrasonic energy