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

2015, Number 3

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2015; 72 (3)

A comparison of the efficacy of diverse methods for cleaning endodontic files

Romero MBR, Medina SKB, Guízar MJM, de Santos AJ

Language: Spanish
References: 11
Page: 134-138
PDF size: 237.25 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Introduction: The procedures used today for cleaning endodontic files include manual, ultrasonic, and impregnation methods. However, there is little information available on the effectiveness of each in removing biological debris, the presence of which prevents sterilization. Objective: To compare the efficacy of manual, ultrasonic, and impregnation cleaning methods in removing biological remains from endodontic files. Material and methods: Manual endodontic files used in endodontic treatment performed by students of the Specialty in Endodontics at the University of La Salle Bajío. The files were contaminated during instrumentation and subsequently subjected to a variety of cleaning methods (i.e., manual, ultrasonic, impregnation). The active portion of the endodontic file (the spiral cord of which was divided into four quarters) was then analyzed under a stereo microscope to determine the presence or absence of biological debris. Conclusion: The most effective methods for thorough cleaning of endodontic instruments (K-type files in particular) are the manual and ultrasonic methods.


REFERENCES

  1. Perkins JJ. Principles and methods of sterilization. Charles C Thomas: Springfield; 1956: p. 129.

  2. Segall RO, del Rio CE, Brady JM, Ayer WA. Evaluation of debridement techniques for endodontic instruments. Oral Surg. 1977; 44: 786-791.

  3. Smith A, Dickson M, Aitken J, Bagg J. Contaminated dental instruments. J Hosp Infect. 2002; 51 (3): 233-235.

  4. ADA Council on Dental Materials, Instruments and Equipments; Council on Dental Therapeutics; Council on Dental Research; Council of Dental Practice. Infection control recommendation for the dental office and the dental laboratory. J AM Dent Assoc. 1992; 123 (8): s1-8.

  5. Whitworth CL, Martin MV, Gallagher M, Worthington HV. A comparison of decontamination methods used for dental burs. Br Dent J. 2004; 197 (10): 635-640.

  6. Roth T, Whitney S, Walker S, Friedman S. Microbial contamination of endodontic files received from the manufacturer. Journal of Endodontic. 2006; 32 (7): 649-651.

  7. van Eldik DA, Zilm PS, Rogers AH, Marin PD. Microbiological evaluation of endodontic files after cleaning and steam sterilization procedures. Australian Dental Journal. 2004; 49 (3): 122-127.

  8. Murgel CAF, Walton RE, Rittmann B, Pecora JD. A comparation of techniques for cleaning endodontic files after usage: a cuantitative scanning electron microscopic study. Journal of Endodontic. 1990; 16 (5): 214-217.

  9. Miller CH. Sterilization disciplined microbial control. Dent Clin North Am. 1991; 35 (2): 339-355.

  10. Linsuwanont P. Cleaning of rotary nickel-titanium endodontic files. School of Dental Science. Melbourne: The University of Melbourne; 2002: MDSc thesis.

  11. Burkhart NW, Crawford J. Critical steps in instrument cleaning: removing debris after sonication. J Am Dent Assoc. 1997; 128: 456-463.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com