To compare the effect of the TF Adaptive, ProTaper Next, OneShape, WaveOne, Reciproc, (SAF) on the reduction of E. faecalis in experimentally infected root canals.
Materials and Methods
70 human mandibular incisor teeth with straight roots and single root canals were selected for this experiment and the root canals of the selected teeth were infected with E. faecalis. After contamination, all the root canals were randomly divided into 7 groups: control, ProTaper Next, TF Adaptive, SAF, WaveOne, Reciproc, and OneShape. After the irrigation procedures, samples were taken from root canals with paper points and incubated in blood agar plates. The colonies grown on the blood agar were counted and interpreted as colony forming units per milliliter.
Results
Analysis of results showed that all instrumentation systems were more effective in reducing the number of bacteria than the control (P<.001). The ProTaper Next, TF Adaptive, WaveOne, Reciproc, and OneShape systems were significantly more effective than the SAF system in reducing E. faecalis within the root canals (P<.001).
Conclusions
All instrumentation systems used in this study provided a significant reduction in bacterial populations.
BystromA., ClaessonR., SundqvistG.The antibacterial effect of camphorated paramonochlorophenol, camphorated phenol and calcium hydroxide in the treatment of infected root canals. Endod Dent Traumatol.1985; 1(5): 170–175.
2.
KakehashiS., StanleyH.R., FitzgeraldR.J.The Effects of Surgical Exposures of Dental Pulps in Germ-Free and Conventional Laboratory Rats. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol.1965; 20: 340–349.
3.
SundqvistG.Ecology of the root canal flora. J Endod.1992; 18(9): 427–430.
4.
SiqueiraJ.F.Jr., RôçasI.N.Clinical implications and microbiology of bacterial persistence after treatment procedures. J Endod.2008; 34(11): 1291–301 e3.
5.
HaapasaloM., EndalU., ZandiH., CoilJ.M.Eradication of endodontic infection by instrumentation and irrigation solutions. Endodontic Topics.2005; 10: 77–102.
6.
AydinC., TuncaY.M., SensesZ., BaysallarM., KayaogluG., ØrstavikD.Bacterial reduction by extensive versus conservative root canal instrumentation in vitro.Acta Odontol Scand.2007; 65(3): 167–170.
7.
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.
8.
GorduysusM., NagasE., TorunO.Y., GorduysusO.A comparison of three rotary systems and hand instrumentation technique for the elimination of Enterococcus faecalis from the root canal. Aust Endod J.2011; 37(3): 128–133.
9.
Matos NetoM., SantosS.S., LeãoM.V., HabitanteS.M., RodriguesJ.R., JorgeA.O.Effectiveness of three instrumentation systems to remove Enterococcus faecalis from root canals. Int Endod J.2012; 45(5): 435–438.
10.
Ferrer-LuqueC.M., BejaranoI., Ruiz-LinaresM., BacaP.Reduction in Enteroccocus faecalis counts - a comparison between rotary and reciprocating systems. Int Endod J.2014; 47(4): 380–386.
11.
MachadoM.E., NabeshimaC.K., LeonardoM.F., ReisF.A., BrittoM.L., CaiS.Influence of reciprocating single-file and rotary instrumentation on bacterial reduction on infected root canals. Int Endod J.2013; 46(11): 1083–1087.
12.
GambariniG., TestarelliL., De LucaM.The influence of three different instrumentation techniques on the incidence of postoperative pain after endodontic treatment. Ann Stomatol (Roma).2013; 4(1): 152–155.
13.
SakamotoM., SiqueiraJ.F.Jr., RôçasI.N., BennoY.Bacterial reduction and persistence after endodontic treatment procedures. Oral Microbiol Immunol.2007; 22(1): 19–23.
14.
BasmaciF., OztanM.D., KiyanM.Ex vivo evaluation of various instrumentation techniques and irrigants in reducing E. faecalis within root canals. Int Endod J.2013; 46(9): 823–830.
15.
AlvesF.R., AlmeidaB.M., NevesM.A., RôçasI.N., SiqueiraJ.F.Jr.. Time-dependent antibacterial effects of the self-adjusting file used with two sodium hypochlorite concentrations. J Endod.2011; 37(10): 1451–1455.
16.
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(3): e105–e110.
17.
DagnaA., ArciolaC.R., VisaiL.Antibacterial efficacy of conventional and single-use Ni-Ti endodontic instruments: an in vitro microbiological evaluation. Int J Artif Organs.2012; 35(10): 826–831.
18.
SjögrenU., FigdorD., SpångbergL., SundqvistG.The antimicrobial effect of calcium hydroxide as a short-term intracanal dressing. Int Endod J.1991; 24(3): 119–125.
19.
HaapasaloM., OrstavikD.In vitro infection and disinfection of dentinal tubules. J Dent Res.1987; 66(8): 1375–1379.
20.
PeciulieneV., ReynaudA.H., BalciunieneI., HaapasaloM.Isolation of yeasts and enteric bacteria in root-filled teeth with chronic apical periodontitis. Int Endod J.2001; 34(6): 429–434.
21.
RôçasI.N., SiqueiraJ.F.Jr., SantosK.R.Association of Enterococcus faecalis with different forms of periradicular diseases. J Endod.2004; 30(5): 315–320.
22.
PinheiroE.T., GomesB.P., FerrazC.C., SousaE.L., TeixeiraF.B., Souza-FilhoF.J.Microorganisms from canals of root-filled teeth with periapical lesions. Int Endod J.2003; 36(1): 1–11.
23.
StuartC.H., SchwartzS.A., BeesonT.J., OwatzC.B.Enterococcus faecalis: its role in root canal treatment failure and current concepts in retreatment. J Endod.2006; 32(2): 93–98.
SiguschB.W., KranzS., KleinS.Colonization of Enterococcus faecalis in a new SiO/SiO(2)-microtube in vitro model system as a function of tubule diameter. Dent Mater.2014; 30(6): 661–668.
