The purpose of this in vitro study was to investigate the capability of different Ni-Ti instruments in disinfecting root canals previously infected with E. faecalis.
Methods
60 single-rooted, freshly extracted teeth were selected, sterilized and inoculated with cells of E. faecalis strain. All root canals were shaped with different Ni-Ti instruments (MTwo, Revo-S, Reciproc, and OneShape) under irrigation with NaOCl and 17% EDTA solutions by the same trained operator. The number of Colony Forming Units (CFU)/ml of E. faecalis was evaluated for each group. Numeric data were submitted to statistical analysis.
Results
MTwo, REVO-S, Reciproc and OneShape reported significantly lower CFU/ml values and showed no significant differences among them (p>0.05). All groups showed significantly higher CFU/ml values than not treated samples (negative control).
Conclusions
All the Ni-Ti instrumentation efficiently reduced E. faecalis counts and no significant differences were found among them. Single-use files can offer antibacterial results comparable with traditional instruments.
Abou-RassM., PiccininoM.V.The effectiveness of four clinical irrigation methods on the removal of root canal debris. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.1982; 54(3): 323–8.
3.
BriseñoB.M., WirthR., HammG., StandhartingerW.Efficacy of different irrigation methods and concentrations of root canal irrigation solutions on bacteria in the root canal. Endod Dent Traumatol.1992; 8(1): 6–11.
4.
KaplanA.E., PiccaM., GonzalezM.I., MacchiR.L., MolgatiniS.L.Antimicrobial effect of six endodontic sealers: an in vitro evaluation. Endod Dent Traumatol.1999; 15(1): 42–45.
5.
MickelA.K., NguyenT.H., ChogleS.Antimicrobial activity of endodontic sealers on Enterococcus faecalis. J Endod.2003; 29(4): 257–258.
6.
BrownJ.I., DoranJ.E.An in vitro evaluation of the particle flotation capability of various irrigating solutions. J Calif Dent Assoc.1975; 3(3): 60–63.
7.
D'ArcangeloC., VarvaraG., De FazioP.An evaluation of the action of different root canal irrigants on facultative aerobic-anaerobic, obligate anaerobic, and microaerophilic bacteria. J Endod.1999; 25(5): 351–353.
8.
JeansonneM.J., WhiteR.R.A comparison of 2.0% chlorhexidine gluconate and 5.25% sodium hypochlorite as antimicrobial endodontic irrigants. J Endod.1994; 20(6): 276–278.
9.
SiqueiraJ.F.Jr., BatistaM.M., FragaR.C., de UzedaM.Antibacterial effects of endodontic irrigants on black-pigmented gram-negative anaerobes and facultative bacteria. J Endod.1998; 24(6): 414–416.
10.
SundqvistG., FigdorD., PerssonS., SjögrenU.Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative re-treatment. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.1998; 85(1): 86–93.
11.
AyhanH., SultanN., CirakM., RuhiM.Z., BodurH.Antimicrobial effects of various endodontic irrigants on selected microorganisms. Int Endod J.1999; 32(2): 99–102.
12.
ShihM., MarshallF.J., RosenS.The bactericidal efficiency of sodium hypochlorite as an endodontic irrigant. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol.1970; 29(4): 613–619.
13.
MentzT.C.F.The use of sodium hypochlorite as a general endodontic medicament. Int Endod J.1982; 15(3): 132–136.
14.
ByströmA., SundqvistG.Bacteriologic evaluation of the effect of 0.5 percent sodium hypochlorite in endodontic therapy. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol.1983; 55(3): 307–312.
15.
SiqueiraJ.F.Jr., MachadoA.G., SilveiraR.M., LopesH.P., de UzedaM.Evaluation of the effectiveness of sodium hypochlorite used with three irrigation methods in the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the root canal, in vitro. Int Endod J.1997; 30(4): 279–282.
16.
TürkünM., CengizT.The effects of sodium hypochlorite and calcium hydroxide on tissue dissolution and root canal cleanliness. Int Endod J.1997; 30(5): 335–342.
17.
SassoneL.M., FidelR., FidelS., VieiraM., HirataR.Jr.. The influence of organic load on the antimicrobial activity of different concentrations of NaOCl and chlorhexidine in vitro. Int Endod J.2003; 36(12): 848–852.
18.
RadcliffeC.E., PotouridouL., QureshiR.. Antimicrobial activity of varying concentrations of sodium hypochlorite on the endodontic microorganisms Actinomyces israelii, A. naeslundii, Candida albicans and Enterococcus faecalis. Int Endod J.2004; 37(7): 438–446.
19.
WadhwaniK.K., TikkuA.P., ChandraA., ShakyaV.K.A comparative evaluation of smear layer removal with ethylenediami-netetraacetic acid in different states: a SEM study. Indian J Dent Res.2011; 22: 10–15.
20.
ShupingG.B., OrstavikD., SigurdssonA., TropeM.Reduction of intracanal bacteria using nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation and various medications. J Endod.2000; 26(12): 751–755.
21.
DagnaA., ArciolaC.R., FlorindiF.. In vitro evaluation of antimicrobial efficacy of endodontic irrigants. Int J Artif Organs.2011; 34(9): 914–919.
22.
MontanaroL., CampocciaD., RizziS.. Evaluation of bacterial adhesion of Streptococcus mutans on dental restorative materials. Biomaterials2004; 25(18): 4457–4463.
23.
Matos NetoM., SantosS.S.F., LeãoM.V.P., HabitanteS.M., RodriguesJRDD, JorgeA.O.C.Effectiveness of three instrumentation systems to remove Enterococcus faecalis from root canals. Int Endod J.2012; 45(5): 435–438.
24.
SundqvistG.Ecology of the root canal flora. J Endod.1992; 18(9): 427–30.
25.
PoggioC., DagnaA., ChiesaM.. SEM evaluation of the root canal walls after treatment with Tetraclean. Int J Artif Organs.2010; 33(9): 660–666.
26.
ArciolaC.R., BaldassarriL., CampocciaD.. Strong biofilm production, antibiotic multi-resistance and high gelE expression in epidemic clones of Enterococcus faecalis from orthopaedic implant infections. Biomaterials.2008; 29(5): 580–586.
27.
MontanaroL., PoggiA., VisaiL.. Extracellular DNA in biofilms. Int J Artif Organs2011; 34(9): 824–831.
28.
SchäferE., VlassisM.Comparative investigation of two rotary nickel-titanium instruments: ProTaper versus RaCe. Part 1. Shaping ability in simulated curved canals. Int Endod J.2004; 37(4): 229–238.
29.
YangG.B., ZhouX.D., ZhangH., WuH.K.Shaping ability of progressive versus constant taper instruments in simulated root canals. Int Endod J.2006; 39(10): 791–799.
30.
SinglaM., AggarwalV., LoganiA., ShahN.Comparative evaluation of rotary ProTaper, profile, and conventional stepback technique on reduction in Enterococcus faecalis colony-forming units and vertical root fracture resistance of root canals. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2010; 109: 105–110.
31.
FoschiF., NucciC., MontebugnoliL.. SEM evaluation of canal wall dentine following use of Mtwo and ProTaper NiTi rotary instruments. Int Endod J.2004; 37(12): 832–839.
32.
Pérez-HerediaM., Ferrer-LuqueC.M., González-RodríguezM.P.The effectiveness of different acid irrigating solutions in root canal cleaning after hand and rotary instrumentation. J Endod.2006; 32(10): 993–997.
33.
YangG., WuH., ZhengY., ZhangH., LiH., ZhouX.Scanning electron microscopic evaluation of debris and smear layer remaining following use of ProTaper and Hero Shaper instruments in combination with NaOCl and EDTA irrigation. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2008; 106(4): e63–71.
34.
RollisonS., BarnettF., StevensR.H.Efficacy of bacterial removal from instrumented root canals in vitro related to instrumentation technique and size. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol Oral Radiol Endod.2002; 94(3): 366–371.
35.
MachadoM.E., SapiaL.A., CaiS., MartinsG.H., NabeshimaC.K.Comparison of two rotary systems in root canal preparation regarding disinfection. J Endod.2010; 36(7): 1238–1240.
36.
BürkleinS., HinschitzaK., DammaschkeT., SchäferE.Shaping ability and cleaning effectiveness of two single-file systems in severely curved root canals of extracted teeth: reciproc and WaveOne versus Mtwo and ProTaper. Int Endod J.2012; 45(5): 449–461.
