F. Basmaci, M. D. Öztan, and M. Kiyan
International Endodontic Journal. 2013 September; 46(9):823-30.
AIM: To evaluate ex vivo the effectiveness of single-file instrumentation techniques compared with serial Ni-Ti rotary instrumentation with several irrigation regimens in reducing E. faecalis within root canals.
METHODOLOGY: A total of 81 extracted human mandibular premolar teeth with a single root canal were infected with E. faecalis before and after canal preparation. Samples were divided randomly into 9 groups, as follows: group 1-A: sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Self-adjusting file, group 1-B: 5% sodium hypochlorite + 15% EDTA + Self-adjusting file, group 1-C: 5% sodium hypochlorite + 7% maleic acid + Self-adjusting file, group 2-A: sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Reciproc (R25), group 2-B: 5% sodium hypochlorite + 15% EDTA + Reciproc (R25), group 2-C: 5% sodium hypochlorite + 7% maleic acid + Reciproc (R25), group 3-A: sterile phosphate-buffered saline + ProTaper, group 3-B: 5% sodium hypochlorite + 15% EDTA + ProTaper, group 3-C: 5% sodium hypochlorite + 7% maleic acid + ProTaper. anova was used to analyse statistically the differences in terms of reduction in colony counts between the groups, and Dunn's post hoc test was used for multiple comparisons.
RESULTS: All techniques and irrigation regimens significantly reduced the number of bacterial cells in the root canal (P < 0.001). Comparisons amongst the groups revealed significant differences between group 1A (sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Self-adjusting file)/group 1B (5% sodium hypochlorite + 15% EDTA + Self-adjusting file) (P = 0.031), group 1A (sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Self-adjusting file)/group 2C (5% sodium hypochlorite + 7% maleic acid + Reciproc) (P = 0.003), group 2A (sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Reciproc)/group 3B (5% sodium hypochlorite + 15% EDTA + ProTaper) (P = 0.036), group 3B (5% sodium hypochlorite + 15% EDTA + ProTaper)/group 1A (sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Self-adjusting file) (P < 0.001), and group 3C (5% sodium hypochlorite + 7% maleic acid + ProTaper)/group 1A (sterile phosphate-buffered saline + Self-adjusting file) (P = 0.033).
CONCLUSIONS: No significant differences in terms of reduction in microbial counts were observed between single-file techniques (SAF and Reciproc) and serial Ni-Ti instrumentation technique (ProTaper) in combination with irrigants.
The full article is available online: ResearchGate
