
Abstract Aim: In-vitro comparative evaluation in the removal of Smear layer and Debris during root canal instrumentation using Two Rotary and Two Reciprocating file systems with Scanning Electron Microscope analysis. Materials & Method: Eighty extracted human permanent mandibular single rooted premolar teeth were collected and randomly divided into four groups, 20 teeth per group based on type of files used for root canal instrumentation. Group 1: ProTaper Gold (PTG) and Group 2: TruNatomy (TN) Rotary file systems. Group 3: Wave One Gold (WOG) and Group 4: Reciproc Blue (RB) Reciprocating file systems. All root canals were irrigated with Sodium hypochlorite and Ethylene-diamine-tetra acetic acid during canal instrumentation. The Coronal, Middle and Apical-third’s of root canals in all specimens were then examined using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) for the presence (or) absence of Smear layer and Debris. Results: One-Way Anova and Tuckey Post-hoc tests were used for statistical analysis. Statistically significant difference was seen in the removal of debris and smear layer among the four groups, P≤ 0.05. Group 3 (Wave One Gold) followed by Group 2 (TruNatomy) showed the presence of least or minimal smear layer and debris at all 3-levels of root canals. Whereas, Group 1 (ProTaper Gold) showed the presence of maximum smear layer and debris at all 3-levels of root canals. Conclusion: Wave One Gold Reciprocating file showed maximum efficiency and ProTaper Gold showed least efficiency in the removal of both Smear layer and Debris at all 3-levels of root canals compared to other file systems used.
Smear Layer, Debris, Rotary File, Reciprocating File, Scanning Electron Microscope
Smear Layer, Debris, Rotary File, Reciprocating File, Scanning Electron Microscope
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 0 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Average | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Average | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Average |
