RESUMO

AIM: The aim of this study was to compare the bacterial reduction achieved with reciprocating instruments such as Reciproc® R25 (VDW GMBH, Munich, Germany) and Reciproc® R25 combined with rotary file Mtwo 40.04 (VDW GMBH) during root canal preparation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty mesiobuccal root canals of maxillary molars were contaminated with Enterococcus faecalis broth culture and then an initial bacterial sample was collected from the root canal with paper cones and plated on brain-heart infusion agar. The root canals were divided into four groups as follows: Reciproc® R25 (n = 20) and Reciproc® R25 combined with Mtwo 40.04 instrument (n = 20). The negative controls consisted of five uncontaminated root canals and the positive control consisted of five contaminated roots that were not subjected to any decontamination procedure. Irrigation was performed using sodium chloride. After instrumentation, samples were collected with paper cones and the rate of bacterial reduction was calculated. Microbiological testing (colony-forming units [CFUs]) was performed to quantify the decontamination obtained by the proposed protocols. Statistical analysis was performed by paired t-test and analysis of variance test. RESULTS: Both techniques significantly reduced the number of bacteria in the root canal (P < 0.05), with no significant difference among them (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: The addition of the instrument Mtwo 40.04 after the root preparation with the instrument R25 does not improve its decontamination capability.

RESUMO

AIM: To compare the effectiveness of large apical preparations and complementary canal preparation with the Self-Adjusting File (SAF) in removing endotoxins from the root canal of teeth with apical periodontitis. METHODOLOGY: Ten single-rooted and single-canaled teeth with post-treatment apical periodontitis were selected. Endotoxin samples were taken after removal of the root filling (S1), after chemomechanical preparation (CMP) using 2.5% NaOCl and an R25 file (S2), after CMP using 2.5% NaOCl and an R40 file (S3) and after complementary CMP using the SAF system (S4). Limulus amebocyte lysate (LAL) was used to measure endotoxin levels. The Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were used to compare endotoxin levels at each clinical intervention (P < 0.05). RESULTS: After root filling removal, endotoxin was detected in 100% of the root canals (S1, 4.84 EU mL-1 ). CMP with the R25 file was able to significantly reduce endotoxin levels (P < 0.05). Increased levels of endotoxin removal were achieved by apical preparation with the R40 file (P < 0.05). Complementary CMP with SAF did not significantly reduce endotoxin levels (P > 0.05) following the use of the R40 instrument. CONCLUSIONS: Apical enlargement protocols were effective in significantly reducing endotoxin levels. Complementary preparation with the SAF system failed to eliminate residual endotoxin contents beyond those obtained with the R40 instrument.

Assuntos

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of large apical preparations in the danger zones of the mesial root canals of mandibular molars instrumented with the Mtwo and Reciproc systems (VDW, Munich, Germany) until reaching apical diameters of 0.25 and 0.40 mm. METHODS: Twelve mandibular molars, the mesial roots of which presented distinct foramens and similar anatomies, were selected using micro-computed tomographic scanning. Mtwo and Reciproc instruments were used to shape the mesiobuccal or mesiolingual canals. The mesial canals were scanned before and after the use of 0.25- and 0.40-mm Mtwo and Reciproc instruments. The analyzed parameters included the root canal volume and remaining dentin thickness at 5 different levels. The obtained data were subjected to paired analysis of variance and Tukey or Friedman and Dunn tests for intragroup analysis and the Mann-Whitney U test for comparison between the mesial and distal walls. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the mesial and distal dentin thickness for the points analyzed with both instrumentation techniques (P > .05). The volumetric analysis revealed a significant difference (P < .05) among the initial volume and after the use of the 0.25- and 0.40-mm instruments for both systems. The use of the 0.40-mm instrument increased the root canal volume in comparison to the 0.25-mm instrument (P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Both systems performed similarly for the preparation of curved root canals with separate apical foramens. The increase of the root canal preparation with the 0.40-mm instrument significantly increased the root canal volume at the apical third without significantly reducing the dentin thickness in the danger zone for both instrument systems.

Assuntos