PROMOTING ACCESS TO AFRICAN RESEARCH

Nigerian Journal of Clinical Practice

Log in or Register to get access to full text downloads.

Remember me or Register



Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of root canal surfaces prepared with three rotary endodontic systems: Lightspeed, ProTaper and EndoWave

BS Hema, GS Chandu, VL Shiraguppi

Abstract


Background and Objectives: The purpose of this in vitro study was to  evaluate and compare the cleaning efficiency, preparation time, instrument deformation and fracture with LightSpeed (LS), ProTaper (PT) and  EndoWave (Ew) rotary instruments.
Materials and Methods: A total of 45 freshly extracted human mandibular premolars were subjected for the study. They were divided into three groups, each group consisting of 15 teeth. Group 1: The canals were prepared with LS system; Group 2: PT rotary system, Group 3: Ew rotary system. All the groups were prepared according to manufacturerfs recommendation, using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite and 17%  ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (dent wash, prime dent) alternately as an irrigants. Crowns of each tooth were removed with diamond disks at the level of cemento enamel junction. Canal length was determined by placing a size 10 K.file. The working length was 0.5 mm short of canal length. Two longitudinal grooves were prepared on the lingual and buccal surfaces of each root to facilitate vertical splitting with a chisel after canal  instrumentation. The sections were then observed under scanning electron microscope for presence or absence of debris and smear layer and the photographs were taken at coronal, middle and apical 1/3 with a magnification of ~200 and ~1000 respectively. The time taken to enlarge each canal was recorded in minutes and seconds. The instruments were examined after every use for deformation. The scores recorded were statistically analyzed using one.way analysis of variance and Mann.Whitney test.
Results: There was statistically significant difference with regard to removal of debris and smear layer at coronal, middle and apical third for LS versus PT and LS versus Ew (P < 0.01). There was no significant difference  between PT and Ew. The mean preparation time for LS, PT and Ew was 1.76, 2.50 and 2.75 respectively. Interpretation and Conclusion: The study demonstrated that, LS instrumentation removed debris and smear layer effectively with shorter preparation time and Ew instrument showed deformation.


Key words: Debris, EndoWave, instrument deformation, LightSpeed, nickel-titanium instruments, preparation time, ProTaper, scanning electron microscope analysis, smear layer




AJOL African Journals Online