An in-Vitro Comparative Evaluation in The Removal of Smear Layer and Debris During Root Canal Instrumentation Using Two Rotary (Protaper Gold, Trunatomy) and Two Reciprocating (Wave One Gold, Reciproc Blue) File Systems With Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Analysis
- 1. International Journal of Dental Science and Innovative Research (IJDSIR)
Description
Abstract
Aim: In-vitro comparative evaluation in the removal of Smear layer and Debris during root canal instrumentation using Two Rotary and Two Reciprocating file systems with Scanning Electron Microscope analysis.
Materials & Method: Eighty extracted human permanent mandibular single rooted premolar teeth were collected and randomly divided into four groups, 20 teeth per group based on type of files used for root canal instrumentation. Group 1: ProTaper Gold (PTG) and Group 2: TruNatomy (TN) Rotary file systems. Group 3: Wave One Gold (WOG) and Group 4: Reciproc Blue (RB) Reciprocating file systems. All root canals were irrigated with Sodium hypochlorite and Ethylene-diamine-tetra acetic acid during canal instrumentation. The Coronal, Middle and Apical-third’s of root canals in all specimens were then examined using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) for the presence (or) absence of Smear layer and Debris.
Results: One-Way Anova and Tuckey Post-hoc tests were used for statistical analysis. Statistically significant difference was seen in the removal of debris and smear layer among the four groups, P≤ 0.05. Group 3 (Wave One Gold) followed by Group 2 (TruNatomy) showed the presence of least or minimal smear layer and debris at all 3-levels of root canals. Whereas, Group 1 (ProTaper Gold) showed the presence of maximum smear layer and debris at all 3-levels of root canals.
Conclusion: Wave One Gold Reciprocating file showed maximum efficiency and ProTaper Gold showed least efficiency in the removal of both Smear layer and Debris at all 3-levels of root canals compared to other file systems used.
Files
SRIKUMAR.pdf
Additional details
Software
References
- 1. Duaa Waleed, Bahar Jaafar Selivany. Debridement Ability of TruNatomy, S-One Plus, and Other Single File Systems. Macedonian Journal of Medical Sciences. 2022;10(D):91-97. 2. Herbert Schilder, Cleaning and Shaping the Root Canal. Dental Clinics of North America. 1974;18 (2):269-296. 3. Glossary of Endodontic Terms. American Association of Endodontists.10th edition. 2020. 4. Chatterjee S, Desai PD, Mukherjee S, Mazumdar P, Sengupta P. Evaluation of debris and smear layer formation using three different NI-TI rotary instrument systems: An in vitro scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent. 2022;24(6):568-575. 5. McComb D, Smith DC. A preliminary scanning electron microscopic study of root canals after endodontic procedures. J Endod. 1975;1(7):238–242. 6. Shetty S, Hegde MN, Devadiga D. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of greater taper rotary instruments. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2013; 4: 177-187. 7. Amaral P, Forner L, Llena C. Smear layer removal in canals shaped with reciprocating rotary systems. J Clin Exp Dent. 2013;5(5):e227-230. 8. Hulsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: Shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005;10(19):30-76. 9. Ul-Haq SKM, Anita Rao S, Muralidhar T, Pradeep B. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of smear layer generated by rotary instrumentation techniques: An in-vitro study. J Dent Panacea. 2021;3(4):169-172. 10. De-Deus G, Silva EJ, Vieira VT, Belladona FG, Elias CN, Plotino G, et al. Blue thermomechanical treatment optimized fatigue resisitance and flexibility of the reciproc files. J Endod. 2017;43(3):462-466 11. Feghali M, Jabbour E, Koyess E, Sabbagh J. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of debris and smear layer generated by two instruments used in reciprocating motion WaveOne Gold and Reciproc Blue. Australian Endodontic Journal 2019;45(3):388-393 12. Ramachandran K, Rajasekaran MS, Ramachandran AK, Narayan GS, Venkatesan SM. SEM evaluation of smear layer removal by two different single file system along with various irrigating solutions - An in vitro study. Endodontology 2025;37: 44-9. 13. Durga Bhavani Panithini, Sita Rama Kumar M, Girija S Sajjan, Madhu Varma K, Kalyan Satish R, Manishaa B. Comparative evaluation of remaining dentin thickness with three different rotary Ni-Ti File systems: An in-vitro CBCT study. International Journal of Dental Materials2022;4(1):6–10. 14. Haapasalo M, Shen Y, Wang Z, Gao Y. Irrigation in Endodontics. Br Dent J. 2014; 216(6):299–303. 15. Schneider SW. A comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1971;32(3):271-275. 16. Hulsmann M, Rummelin C, Schafers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: a comparative SEM investigation. J Endod 1997;23: 301–306. 17. Keskin C, Inan U, Demiral M, Keles A. Cyclic fatigue resistance of Reciproc Blue, Reciproc, and WaveOne Gold reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2017; 43: 1360–1363. 18. Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne Gold single file reciprocating system. Int Dent Afr Ed. 2015;1:34-40. 19. Machado R, Comparin D, Engelke Back ED, Roberti Garcia Ld, Alberton LR. Residual smear layer after root canal instrumentation by using Niti, M-Wire and CM-Wire instruments: A scanning electron microscopy analysis. Eur J Dent 2018;12:403-409. 20. Suparna SG, Shrivastava P, Dubey S, Kala S. Comparison of root canal cleaning ability of ProTaper NEXT and WaveOne rotary file systems – A Scanning Electron Microscopic (SEM) study. Endodontology. 2015;27:124-28. 21. De Carvalho FM, Gonçalves LC, Marques AA, Alves V, Bueno CE, De Martin AS. Cleaning effectiveness of a reciprocating single-file and a conventional rotary instrumentation system. Open Dent J. 2016;10:704-713.