Search

Introduction: This study aimed to assess the amount of apical extrusion of debris after root canal instrumentation with three different reciprocating single endodontic file systems including R-motion, Edge One Fire, and Reciproc Blue. Methods: Forty-five human upper first molars that were extracted for periodontal reason included in the study and randomly assigned among three study groups (n= 15). Reciproc Blue, R-motion, and Edge One files were used to instrument the palatal root. Amount of apical extrusion of debris was assessed using the empty tube model of Myers and Montgomery. Data were analyzed blindly via one-way ANOVA and the Tukey post hoc test using R. Results: There was statistically significant difference among study groups (p < 0 .001). Post hoc test showed nonsignificant difference among Edge One and Reciproc Blue groups (p=0.106). The difference between R-motion and Reciproc Blue was marginally significant (p=0.055). Conclusion: Within the limitations of this study, R-Motion showed the most amount of apically extruded debris followed by Reciproc Blue and Edge One. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: This study was conducted to evaluate and compare the effect of using three adhesive systems on the shear bond strength between composite resin and fresh amalgam. Materials and Methods: Amalgam samples were assigned into three groups according to the adhesive systems being used prior to the composite resin application. Group A (n= 10): universal self-etch bonding system (Single Bond Universal Adhesive, 3M, Neuss, Germany) was applied and light cured. Group B (n=10): universal self-etch bonding was applied and light cured, followed by a thin layer of nanohybrid flowable composite (Tetric N-Flow, Ivoclar Vivadent, Liechtenstein), then light cured. Group C (n=10): self-adhesive dual-cure luting resin cement (Calibra Universal, Dentsply Sirona, Charlotte, NC) was applied in equal quantity for each sample over amalgam surface. Composite resin was then applied by plastic instrument in a single increment to the height of the hole (2 mm), then celluloid strip was placed and light cured. After thermocycling, a shear bond test was performed. Results: Resin luting cement interface showed the higher significant bond strength, followed by universal bonding agent - flowable composite interface. The universal bonding interface group yielded the lowest results. Conclusion: The application of self-adhesive dual-cure luting resin cement resulted in significant increase in bond strength between composite resin and fresh amalgam. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: GuttaFlow Bioseal (Roeko-Coltene/Whaledent, Langenau, Germany), TotalFill Bioceramic (FKG Dentaire SA, La Chaux-de-Fonds, Switzerland), and AH Plus root canal sealers (Dentsply, DeTrey, Germany) are used to prevent communication between periapical space and the root canal. This study aims to evaluate the apical microleakage of three endodontic sealers. Materials and Methods: Seventyfive freshly extracted mandibular premolars were prepared and obturated with single-cone gutta-percha, then grouped into three groups according to the sealers used. The data were analyzed using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey honestly significant difference (HSD) test. Results: The least mean dye penetration was shown by GuttaFlow Bioseal sealer (1.31 mm), followed by TotalFill Bioceramic sealer (1.57 mm) and AH Plus sealer (2.63 mm); no dye penetration was found in the negative control group. One-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) showed statistically significant difference among all experimental groups (P < 0.001); Tukey test shows significant differences between all groups except for a nonsignificant difference between GuttaFlow Bioseal and TotalFill Bioceramic sealer (P= 0.6). Conclusion: All sealers showed varying levels of apical microleakage, with the least penetration in the GuttaFlow Bioseal group. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: The goal of this study was to compare the impact of NaOCl, EDTA, and chitosan on the cyclic fatigue of 2Shape, HyFlex EDM, and RACE EVO. Methods: A total of 120 new 2Shape (n=40), HyFlex EDM (n=40), and RACE EVO (n=40) files were subdivided randomly into four groups (n=10): Group (A) with no immersion, Group (B) with immersion in 5.25% NaOCl for 5 min, Group (C) with immersion in 17% EDTA for 5 min, and Group (D) with immersion in 0.2% chitosan for 5 min. The files were rotated in an artificial canal with a 5mm radius and a 60° curvature at body temperature until they fractured, and the number of cycles to fracture was measured. ANOVA test and Tukey post-hoc test were used to analyze the data. Results: Immersion of the files in NaOCl, EDTA, or chitosan solutions had no significant effect on the number of cycles to fracture (P > 0.05). Conclusion: The irrigation solutions did not have any influence on the cyclic fatigue of the tested files. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: This in vitro study was intended to compare the removing efficacy of smear layer of the EndoVac, EDDY tip, XP - endo Finisher and conventional needle irrigation in palatal roots of extracted maxillary first molars, at the apical, middle and coronal levels by using scanning electron microscopy. Material and Method: The palatal roots of sixty recently extracted maxillary first molars were selected and divided into four groups (n=15) according to final irrigation agitation systems; EndoVac irrigation system,Eddy tip, XP - endo Finisher and conventional needle irrigation. Each root was prepared to 40/0.06 apical size with EDGEENDO X3 rotary files. Following splitting the root samples, single half of each sample was selected for examination under scanning electron microscope (SEM). The comparisons among irrigation activation devices were done using the Kruskal Wallis test and Mann-Whitney U test at 0.05 significance level. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the present study, no one of the tested systems can remove the smear layer completely. However, EndoVac system, Eddy tip and XP - endo Finisher remove significantly more smear layer than conventional needle irrigation at the apical third but there was no significant difference at middle and coronal thirds. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim of the Study: To measure and compare the cleaning efficiency of 2 Shape, Hyflex EDM and Protaper GOLD rotary systems in removing debris and compare the percentage of remaining debris at three different levels of root canal by using digital image morphometric analysis. Material and Method: Total 60 freshly extracted human maxillary first molar with single straight palatal roots were selected were disinfected in a solution of 1% Thymol for 1 day then the palatal roots were sectioned at a length of 12 mm from the apex and randomly divided into three groups of twenty teeth : Group A: Was prepared by 2 Shape file system (Full rotary technique). Group B: Was prepared by Hyflex EDM file system (Full rotary technique). Group C: Was prepared by Protaper GOLD system (Full rotary technique) . All systems were used according to the manufacture instructions and roots prepared to an apical preparation corresponding to size 40 K-file. Sodium hypochlorite (3%) was used as an irrigant for all groups. Conclusions: 2 Shape system was significantly less effective than Hyflex EDM and Protaper GOLD systems in eliminating debris from root canals at all levels. There were no differences in the cleaning efficiency between Hyflex EDM and Protaper GOLD systems at all levels of root canals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Debris including dentin chips, residual pulp tissue, microorganisms and irrigants can be forced towards the periapical area. This extrusion may cause discomfort, pain, persistent inflammation and inter appointment flare up. Objectives To measure and compare the amount of apically extruded debris by using five irrigation techniques. Materials and Methods Seventy-five palatal root of extracted maxillary first molars were used. Each root was mounted in the pre-weighted collecting glass vial. The samples were randomly divided into five groups of 15 samples for each group according to the used irrigation technique: (Needle Irrigation, Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation by NSK Varios, sonic irrigation by EndoActivatr, CanaBrush and EndoVac irrigation system). Canals were prepared using ProTaper NEXT rotary NiTi files to size X4, the irrigation technique of each group was conducted according to manufacturer instructions. The difference between pre and post-instrumentation weights presented as the weight of extruded debris. Results Showed that all irrigation techniques caused apical extrusion of debris with different values. Conclusion: EndoVac was found to be the safest irrigation system among all groups with respect to apical extrusion of debris [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the efficacy of chitosan (CS) nanoparticles (CNPs), citric acid (CA), and ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA) in removing the smear layer using two different irrigation needles., Materials and Methods: Palatal roots of 70 maxillary first molars were decoronated, instrumented, and divided into four experimental groups ( n = 20) and one control group ( n = 10). The groups received a final rinse of 0.5% CNPs, 10% CA, 17% EDTA, and distilled water for 3 min. Every group was subdivided into two subsections: IrriFlex ® endodontic or ProRinse ® irrigation needles. Specimens were divided lengthwise and viewed under a scanning electron microscope for evaluation., Statistical Analysis Used: Nonparametric Kruskal-Wallis and Mann-Whitney U -tests were used to compare the results ( P < 0.05)., Results: CNPs were as efficient as CA and EDTA as a chelating agent. However, significantly more efficient apically. At all three levels, there was no significant difference between A1 and A2. At the coronal and middle levels, there was a significant difference between B1 and B2, as well as apically between C1 and C2., Conclusions: CNPs remove the smear layer with the same efficiency as other irrigants utilized in this study at coronal and middle levels and more efficiently at the apical levels. IrriFlex ® was more effective than ProRinse ® in removing the smear layer when used with EDTA and CA, while there was no difference when used with CNPs., Competing Interests: There are no conflicts of interest., (Copyright: © 2022 Journal of Conservative Dentistry.)