Cleaning Effectiveness of a Reciprocating Single-file and a Conventional Rotary Instrumentation System
Fredson Marcio Acris de Carvalho1, *, Leonardo Cantanhede de Oliveira Gonçalves1, André Augusto Franco Marques2, Vanessa Alves1, Carlos Eduardo da Silveira Bueno1, Alexandre Sigrist De Martin1
Identifiers and Pagination:Year: 2016
First Page: 704
Last Page: 713
Publisher ID: TODENTJ-10-704
Article History:Received Date: 15/7/2016
Revision Received Date: 14/9/2016
Acceptance Date: 28/10/2016
Electronic publication date: 26/12/2016
Collection year: 2016
open-access license: This is an open access article licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 4.0 International Public License (CC BY-NC 4.0) (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/legalcode), which permits unrestricted, non-commercial use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the work is properly cited.
To compare cleaning effectiveness by histological analysis of a reciprocating single-file system with ProTaper rotary instruments during the preparation of curved root canals in extracted teeth.
A total of 40 root canals with curvatures ranging between 20 - 40 degrees were divided into two groups of 20 canals. Canals were prepared to the following apical sizes: Reciproc size 25 (n=20); ProTaper: F2 (n=20). The normal distribution of data was tested by the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test and the values obtained for the test (Mann-Whitney U test, P < .05) were statistically analyzed using the GraphPad InStat for the Mac OS software (GraphPad Software, La Jolla, CA, USA).
There were no significant differences in remaining debris (P > .05) between the two groups.
The application of reciprocating motion during instrumentation did not result in increased debris when compared with continuous rotation motion, even in the apical part of curved canals. Both instruments resulted in debris in the canal lumen, irrespective of the movement kinematics applied.