Varun Jindal

A scanning electron microscope evaluation of smear layer removal from root canals prepared by manual or rotary instrumentation using three different irrigating systems: An in vitro study

Introduction: Smear layer removal after root canal instrumentation requires the use of irrigating solutions, either alone or in combination. The mechanical debridement efficacy of an irrigation delivery/agitation system is dependent on its ability to deliver the irrigant to the apical and noninstrumented regions of the canal space and to create a strong enough current to carry the debris away from the canal walls. Materials and Methods: Ninety extracted single-rooted anterior teeth were included in the study and divided into two groups of 45 each. Biomechanical preparation was done with hand files in Group A and with rotary files in Group B. Three subgroups were further made from each group, wherein Max-I-Probe, Endosonic files, and EndoActivator irrigation systems were used in subgroups I, II, and III, respectively. After irrigation with 10% citric acid, specimens were split and the root surfaces were evaluated under scanning electron microscope at cervical, middle, and apical levels. Results: The removal of smear layer was more complete in coronal and middle thirds than in the apical third. No significant difference was found on the removal of smear layer in manually or rotary instrumented groups. When mean scores for all the groups were obtained, Max-I-Probe hand file (Group IA) was found to be most effective in cleaning smear layer in cervical third of root canals, whereas Endosonic rotary showed the best result in both middle and apical third. Conclusion: EndoActivator system did not enhance the removal of smear layer as compared with Endosonic system and the conventional Max-I-Probe irrigation with NaOCl and 10% citric acid. removal of smear layer was more complete in coronal and middle thirds than in the apical third.

Comparison of Apical Transportation, Centering Ability and Cyclic Fatigue Resistance of Four Rotary File Systems

5 PG Student, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Himachal Pradesh, India Reader, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Himachal Pradesh, India Professor & Head, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Himachal Pradesh, India Professor, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Himachal Pradesh, India Sr. Lecturer, Department of Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics, Bhojia Dental College and Hospital, Himachal Pradesh, India

Removal of Gutta-Percha from the Root Canals using Three Different Rotary Files

In case of failed root canal treatment endodontic retreatment of the root canal system is necessary. The aim of the present study was to compare the gutta-percha removal with Protaper retreatment files (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland), K3 (SybronEndo) and Hero Shapers (MicroMega, Besancon, France). Method: Thirty freshly extracted human single rooted teeth were prepared with ProTaper rotary instruments up to file F3 andfilled with 30 # GP cones and AH plus sealer. The teeth were then stored for 1 week. The teeth were divide into 3 retreatment groups (n=10). The gutta-percha was removed using Protaper retreatment files, K3 and Hero Shapers. Teeth were then evaluated using radiographs. Results: Comparing the ratio between clean canals Protaper and K3 showed better debris removal as compared to Hero shaper. But no significance difference was found.