Download PDF
CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Eur J Dent 2018; 12(03): 403-409
DOI: 10.4103/ejd.ejd_259_17
Original Article
Dental Investigation Society

Residual smear layer after root canal instrumentation by using Niti, M-Wire and CM-Wire instruments: A scanning electron microscopy analysis

Ricardo Machado
1   Clinical Practice Limited to Endodontics, Navegantes, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Daniel Comparin
2   Clinical Practice Limited to Endodontics, Cunha Porã, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Eduardo Donato Eing Engelke Back
3   Private Clinical Practice, Joinville, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Lucas da Fonseca Roberti Garcia
4   Department of Dentistry, Division of Endodontics, Health Sciences Center, Federal University of Santa Catarina, Florianópolis, Santa Catarina, Brazil
,
Luiz Rômulo Alberton
5   Department of Veterinary Medicine, Graduate Program in Animal Science, Paranaense University – UNIPAR, Umuarama, Paraná, Brazil
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
16 September 2019 (online)

   Permissions and Reprints

ABSTRACT

Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare the amount of residual smear layer after root canal instrumentation by using Ni-Ti, M-Wire, and CM-Wire instruments. Materials and Methods: Seventy-two mandibular incisors were randomly divided into six groups according to the system used: WaveOne (WO), Reciproc (RP), Unicone (UC), ProTaper Next (PN), Mtwo (MT), and HyFlex (HF). Afterward, the specimens were cleaved in the mesiodistal and buccolingual direction for analysis by scanning electron microscopy. Results: Considering both directions and root canal thirds, there was no difference between HF, MT, and PN. RP, UC, and WO presented a significant difference between the directions, and the cervical third showed a significantly smaller quantity of residual smear layer compared with the apical third. When the systems were compared among them, there was a significant difference only between RP and WO. Conclusions: Residual smear layer observed after instrumentation with the different systems was similar, except for quantities between the reciprocating systems.

Key words:

Nickel-titanium - scanning electron microscopy - smear layer
 

  • REFERENCES

  • 1 Gambarini G, Plotino G, Grande NM, Al-Sudani D, De Luca M, Testarelli L. et al Mechanical properties of nickel-titanium rotary instruments produced with a new manufacturing technique. Int Endod J 2011; 44: 337-41
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shen Y, Qian W, Abtin H, Gao Y, Haapasalo M. Fatigue testing of controlled memory wire nickel-titanium rotary instruments. J Endod 2011; 37: 997-1001
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Gutmann JL, Gao Y. Alteration in the inherent metallic and surface properties of nickel-titanium root canal instruments to enhance performance, durability and safety: A focused review. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 113-28
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Silva EJ, Villarino LS, Vieira VT, Accorsi-Mendonça T, Antunes HD, De-Deus G. et al Bending resistance and cyclic fatigue life of reciproc, unicone, and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2016; 42: 1789-93
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Grande NM, Ahmed HM, Cohen S, Bukiet F, Plotino G. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: A Comprehensive review-part I: Historic perspectives and current applications. J Endod 2015; 41: 1778-83
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Zhou HM, Shen Y, Zheng W, Li L, Zheng YF, Haapasalo M, et al. Mechanical properties of controlled memory and superelastic nickel-titanium wires used in the manufacture of rotary endodontic instruments. J Endod 2012; 38: 1535-40
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Bürklein S, Schäfer E. Apically extruded debris with reciprocating single-file and full-sequence rotary instrumentation systems. J Endod 2012; 38: 850-2
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Evaluation of root canal transportation, centering ratio, and remaining dentin thickness associated with ProTaper next instruments with and without glide path. J Endod 2014; 40: 2053-6
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Wu H, Peng C, Bai Y, Hu X, Wang L, Li C, et al. Shaping ability of ProTaper universal, WaveOne and ProTaper next in simulated L-shaped and S-shaped root canals. BMC Oral Health 2015; 15: 27
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 196-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Hargreaves KM, Cohen S, Berman LH. Cohen's Pathways of the Pulp. 10th. ed St. Louis, Mo.: Mosby Elsevier; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Torabinejad M, Khademi AA, Babagoli J, Cho Y, Johnson WB, Bozhilov K, et al. A new solution for the removal of the smear layer. J Endod 2003; 29: 170-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kim HC, Kwak SW, Cheung GS, Ko DH, Chung SM, Lee W, et al. Cyclic fatigue and torsional resistance of two new nickel-titanium instruments used in reciprocation motion: Reciproc versus WaveOne. J Endod 2012; 38: 541-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Bürklein S, Hinschitza K, Dammaschke T, Schäfer E. Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: Reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J 2012; 45: 449-61
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 de Carvalho GM, Sponchiado Junior EC, Garrido AD, Lia RC, Garcia Lda F, Marques AA. et al Apical transportation, centering ability, and cleaning effectiveness of reciprocating single-file system associated with different glide path techniques. J Endod 2015; 41: 2045-9
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Plotino G, Ahmed HM, Grande NM, Cohen S, Bukiet F. Current assessment of reciprocation in endodontic preparation: A Comprehensive review – Part II: Properties and effectiveness. J Endod 2015; 41: 1939-50
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Plotino G, Giansiracusa Rubini A, Grande NM, Testarelli L, Gambarini G. Cutting efficiency of reciproc and WaveOne reciprocating instruments. J Endod 2014; 40: 1228-30
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Abarajithan M, Dham S, Velmurugan N, Valerian-Albuquerque D, Ballal S, Senthilkumar H. et al Comparison of endovac irrigation system with conventional irrigation for removal of intracanal smear layer: An in vitro study. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod 2011; 112: 407-11
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Singh N, Chandra A, Tikku AP, Verma P. A comparative evaluation of different irrigation activation systems on smear layer removal from root canal: An in vitro scanning electron microscope study. J Conserv Dent 2014; 17: 159-63
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Violich DR, Chandler NP. The smear layer in endodontics – A review. Int Endod J 2010; 43: 2-15
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Wu L, Mu Y, Deng X, Zhang S, Zhou D. Comparison of the effect of four decalcifying agents combined with 60°C 3% sodium hypochlorite on smear layer removal. J Endod 2012; 38: 381-4
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Amaral P, Forner L, Llena C. Smear layer removal in canals shaped with reciprocating rotary systems. J Clin Exp Dent 2013; 5: e227-30
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Kirchhoff AL, Chu R, Mello I, Garzon AD, dos Santos M, Cunha RS. et al Glide path management with single- and multiple-instrument Rotary Systems in Curved Canals: A micro-computed tomographic study. J Endod 2015; 41: 1880-3
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Howard RK, Kirkpatrick TC, Rutledge RE, Yaccino JM. Comparison of debris removal with three different irrigation techniques. J Endod 2011; 37: 1301-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Paqué F, Rechenberg DK, Zehnder M. Reduction of hard-tissue debris accumulation during rotary root canal instrumentation by etidronic acid in a sodium hypochlorite irrigant. J Endod 2012; 38: 692-5
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Berutti E, Paolino DS, Chiandussi G, Alovisi M, Cantatore G, Castellucci A, et al. Root canal anatomy preservation of WaveOne reciprocating files with or without glide path. J Endod 2012; 38: 101-4
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Schäfer E, Erler M, Dammaschke T. Comparative study on the shaping ability and cleaning efficiency of rotary Mtwo instruments. Part 2. Cleaning effectiveness and shaping ability in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth. Int Endod J 2006; 39: 203-12
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J Endod 2013; 39: 1067-70
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Peters OA. Current challenges and concepts in the preparation of root canal systems: A review. J Endod 2004; 30: 559-67
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Paqué F, Musch U, Hülsmann M. Comparison of root canal preparation using RaCe and proTaper rotary Ni-Ti instruments. Int Endod J 2005; 38: 8-16
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar