To Compare the Bacterial Reduction from the Infected Root Canals Using ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and NeoNiTi Instrumentation Systems
International Journal of Dental Medicine
Volume 5, Issue 2, December 2019, Pages: 40-45
Received: Sep. 9, 2019;
Accepted: Oct. 9, 2019;
Published: Dec. 16, 2019
Views 161 Downloads 78
Renubala Sroa, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Punjab Government Dental College & Hospital, Patiala, India
Baljeet Sidhu, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Punjab Government Dental College & Hospital, Amritsar, India
Neha Mengi, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Punjab Government Dental College & Hospital, Amritsar, India
Sarbjot Singh, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Punjab Government Dental College & Hospital, Amritsar, India
Maheep Sidhu, Department of Electronics & Communications, Sri Ramaswamy Memorial University, Chennai, India
Anticipation of root canal bacteria contamination is the foundation of endodontic treatment. The most predominant type is Enterococcus Faecalis strain, along with which several Gram negative enteric rods or Gram positive facultative may also be present. The aim of the present study was to compare the bacterial reduction from the infected root canals taking samples of pre-chemomechanical and post-chemomechanical preparation by ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and NeoNiTi instrumentation systems. Seventy-five systematically healthy patients was selected with permanent mandibular premolar teeth with single root and single canal. They are divided in three: Group I (ProTaper Universal), Group II (WaveOne) and Group III (NeoNiTi), in which each individual pre and post instrumentation sample of microorganism was taken and then analyzed using Paired ‘t’ test, One Way ANOVA with Post HOC comparison using Tukey test for microbiological evaluation. When pre-chemomechanical samples were compared by applying One-Way ANOVA test, the difference in pre-chemomechanical values in all three groups was statistically insignificant (p>0.05). Statistical analysis by applying paired ‘t’ test, One-Way ANOVA and p value showed that there was highly statistically significant change from pre-chemomechanical values to post-chemomechanical values in each study group (p<0.001). There was highly statistically significant difference in CFU count percentage reduction between the pre-instrumentation and post-instrumentation values in all the groups (p<0.001). Group I (ProTaper Universal) showed the highest percentage reduction followed by Group III (NeoNiTi) and Group II (WaveOne). Statistical analysis by paired ‘t’ test and p value showed that the reduction in number of colony forming units from S1 (pre-instrumentation) to S2 (post-instrumentation) was statistically highly significant (p<0.001). It may be concluded that the most effective instrumentation technique in eliminating microorganisms from the root canal was ProTaper Universal system in comparison to WaveOne and NeoNiTi.
To Compare the Bacterial Reduction from the Infected Root Canals Using ProTaper Universal, WaveOne and NeoNiTi Instrumentation Systems, International Journal of Dental Medicine.
Vol. 5, No. 2,
2019, pp. 40-45.
Mehta, S, Singbal, KP, Merh, A & Rai, R 2015, ‘Evaluation of mechanical efficacy of Wave-OneTM and F2 ProTaperTM using reciprocating motion and ProTaperTM system up to F2 using rotary motion in reducing E. faecalis count’, J Adv MedDent Scie Res, vol. 3, no. 1, pp. 19-25.
Siqueira, JF, Lima, KC, Magalhaes, FAC, Lopes, HP & Uzeda, M 1999, ‘Mechanical Reduction of the Bacterial Population in the Root Canal by Three Instrumentation Techniques’, J Endod, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 332-335.
Bystrom, A & Sundqvist, G 1981, ‘Bacteriologic evaluation of the efficacy of mechanical root canal instrumentation in endodontic therapy’, Scand J Dent Res, vol. 89, pp. 321-328.
Burklein, S, Benten, S & Schafer, E 2014, ‘Quantitative evaluation of apically extruded debris with different single-file systems: Reciproc, F360 and OneShape versus Mtwo’, Int Endod J, vol. 47, pp. 405–409.
Dalton, BC, Orstavik, D, Phillips, C, Pettiette, M & Trope, M 1998, ‘Bacterial Reduction with Nickel-Titanium Rotary Instrumentation’, J Endod, vol. 24, no. 11, pp. 763-767.
Aydin, C, Tunca, YM, Senses, Z, Baysallar, M, Kayaoglu, G & Orstavik, D 2007, ‘Bacterial reduction by extensive versus conservative root canal instrumentation in vitro’, Acta Odontol Scand, vol. 65, pp. 167-170.
Baek, JY, Yoo, HM, Park, DS, Oh, TS, Kum, KY, Shin, SY & Chang, SW 2014, ‘Comparison of the shaping abilities of three nickel titanium instrumentation systems using micro-computed tomography’, Journal of Dental Sciences, vol. 9, pp. 111-117.
de Arruda Bitencourt, M, Rocha, DGP & da Silveira Bueno, CE 2017, ‘Incidence of Dentinal Defects on the External Apical Root Surface after Instrumentation with WaveOne Reciprocating Files at Different Working Lengths’, J Endod, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 491-495.
Siqueira, JF, Alves, FRF, Almeida, BM, de Oliveira, JCM & Rocas, IN 2010, ‘Ability of Chemomechanical Preparation with Either Rotary Instruments or Self-adjusting File to Disinfect Oval-shaped Root Canals’, J Endod, vol. 36, pp. 1860-1865.
Neto, MM, Santos, SSF, Leao, MVP, Habitante, SM, Rodrigues, JRDD & Jorge, AOC 2012, ‘Effectiveness of three instrumentation systems to remove Enterococcus faecalis from root canals’, IntEndod J, vol. 45, pp. 435-438.
Nobrega, LMM, Gade-Neto, CR, Dametto, FR, Sarmento, CFM & Carvalho, RA 2011, ‘Ultrasonic irrigation in the removal of smear layer and Enterococcus faecalis from root canals’, Braz J Oral Sci, vol. 10, pp. 221-225.
Soares, JA, deCarvalho, MAR, Santos, SMC, Mendonc, RMC, Ribeiro-Sobrinho, AP, Brito-Junior, M, Magalhaes, PP, Santos, MH &de Macedo Farias, L 2010, ‘Effectiveness of Chemomechanical Preparation with Alternating Use of Sodium Hypochlorite and EDTA in Eliminating Intracanal Enterococcus faecalis Biofilm’, J Endod, vol. 36, pp. 894–898.
Villette, G, Manek, S, Legner, M, Fillery, ED, Torneck, CD, Basrani, BR & Friedman, S 2008, ‘Characterization of an Ex Vivo Model for the Assessment of Root Canal Disinfection’, J Endod, vol. 34, pp. 1490-1496.