medigraphic.com
ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

2013, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2013; 70 (3)

Comparative study of two rotary systems by evaluating irrigant penetration using a contrast medium. A pilot study

Arzate-Sosa G, Lara-Carrillo E, Villarreal-Camarena CY, Scougall-Vilchis RJ, Ríos-Medina LG

Language: Spanish
References: 23
Page: 140-145
PDF size: 101.72 Kb.


ABSTRACT

A multitude of mechanical systems for the instrumentation of root canals have emerged, aimed at improving the quality of endodontic treatment as well as simplifying and standardizing it. Various studies are currently underway into the composition and elasticity of the new Hyflex CM system; however, no studies reveal whether this system facilitates the diffusion of irrigant in the apical region in order to achieve greater disinfection. The aim of this study is to compare two rotary endodontic systems (ProTaper and Hyflex CM), by means of X-ray verification of irrigant penetration using a contrast medium. We conducted a descriptive, comparative, cross-sectional pilot study involving a sample of 6 extracted lower molars, performing prophylaxis and disinfection of the same using 5.25% sodium hypochlorite for 5minutes. During the process of coronal access, existing residual caries and restorations were removed. The teeth were divided into two groups: ProTaper (T1, T2, and T3) and Hyflex CM (T4, T5, and T6). The conductometry of the distal and mesiovestibular canals of all the teeth was recorded. At each of the stages, suggested by the manufacturer, the preparation of the canals of both groups was evaluated by comparing X-ray images and the measurements obtained using radiovisiography. The results showed that the Hyflex CM system provides better and more uniform root preparation and a reduced likelihood of air bubbles being formed. It was possible to show that, due to its properties, the Hyflex CM system is superior to the ProTaper system in terms of the quality of root preparation, allowing better conveyance of the irrigating solution on the apical region, which can ensure greater disinfection in endodontic treatment.


REFERENCES

  1. De la Lima ME. Endodoncia de la biología a la técnica. Sao Paulo, Brasil: Editorial Amolca; 2009.

  2. Leonardo MR, Leonardo RT. Sistemas rotatorios en endodoncia. Sao Paulo, Brasil: Artes Médicas Latinoamérica; 2002.

  3. Baroni BJ, Fariniuk LF, Marchesan MA, Pecora JD, Sousa-Neto MD. Effectiveness of manual and rotary instrumentation techniques for cleaning flattened root canals. J Endod. 2002; 28: 365-366.

  4. Gálvez G, González A, Cruz M, Rosas R, Betancourt E, Guizar JM. Estudio comparativo de la penetración del irrigante con cuatro diferentes técnicas de irrigación en raíces mesiales de molares mandibulares. Rev Endodoncia Actual. 2010;14:22-30.

  5. Paredes VJ, Jiménez EF, Mondaca J, Manríquez QM. Irrigación por medio de presión apical negativa en endodoncia. Revista Nacional de Odontología México. 2009; 1: 20-24.

  6. Hilu R, Balandrano PF, Pérez A, Coaguila LLH. Evaluación de la conformación apical de los conductos radiculares con los sistemas Mtwo y Protaper. Endodoncia. 2010; 28: 220-227.

  7. Gutmann JL et al. Solución de problemas en endodoncia. 4a ed. Madrid. España: Elsevier; 2007.

  8. Haapasalo M, Endal U, Zandi H, Coli JM. Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endodontic Topics. 2005; 10: 77-102.

  9. Hata G, Hayami S, Weine FS, Toda T. Effectiveness of oxidative potential water as a root canal irrigants. Int Endod J. 2001; 34: 308-317.

  10. Zehender M. Root canal irrigants. JOE. 2006; 32: 389-398.

  11. Usman N, Baumgartner JC, Marshall JG. Influence of instrument size on root canal debridement. J Endod. 2004; 30: 110-112.

  12. Falk KW, Sedgley CM. The influence of preparation size on de mechanical efficacy of root canal irrigation in vitro. J Endod. 2005; 31: 742-745.

  13. Sedgley CM, Nagel AC, Hall D, Applegate B. Influence of irrigant needle depth in removing bioluminescent bacteria inoculated into instrumented root canal using real-time imaging in vitro. Int Endod J. 2005; 38: 97-104.

  14. Sánchez RFH, Furuya MAT, Arroniz PS, Gómez MA, Gómez L. Comparación de la acción bactericida del hipoclorito de sodio y el Mycrocin 60. Revista Odontológica Mexicana. 2009; 13: 9-16.

  15. Buchanan SL. ProSystem GT: design, technique and advantages. Endodontic Topics. 2005; 10: 168-175.

  16. Ruddle CJ. The ProTaper technique. Endodontic Topics. 2005; 10: 187-190.

  17. Clauder T, Baumann MA. ProTaper NT system. Dent Clin North Am. 2004; 48: 87-111.

  18. Khabiri M, Zare JM, Feizianfard M, Ataee KR. Comparison of irrigation penetration into the apical part of canals in hand and rotary instrumentations. DRJ. 2007; 4: 26-29.

  19. Sánchez MJ, Garzón TJ, Martínez LJA, Villavicencio PJ, Cárdenas RR. Estudio comparativo del trabajo biomecánico del sistema Protaper y la instrumentación manual in vitro. Rev ADM. 2008; 65: 126-132.

  20. Peters OA, Gluskin AK, Weiss RA, Han JT. An in vitro assessment of the physical properties of novel Hyflex nickel–titanium rotary instruments. Int Endod J. 2012 [En prensa]. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2591.2012.02067.x

  21. Pesse AV, Warrier GR, Dhir VK. An experimental study of the gas entrapment process in closed-end microchannels. Int J Heat Mass Transf. 2005; 48: 5150–5165.

  22. Tay FR, Gu LS, Schoeffel GJ, Wimmer C, Susin L, Zhang K et al. Effect of vapor lock on root canal debridement by using a side-vented needle for positive-pressure irrigant delivery. J Endod. 2010; 36: 745-750.

  23. Porto CL et al. Evaluación de la instrumentación de conductos radiculares con limas manuales y rotatorias de níquel-titanio. Aspecto morfológico de las limas antes y después. Acta Odontológica Venezolana. 2008; 46: 1-9.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com