Debridement Ability of TruNatomy, S-One Plus, and Other Single File Systems

Duaa Waleed; Bahar Jaafar Selivany; Jowhar Rasheed Mohammad

doi:10.3889/oamjms.2022.8398

Authors

Duaa Waleed Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7218-625X
Bahar Jaafar Selivany Department of Conservative Dentistry, College of Dentistry, University of Duhok, Duhok, Iraq
Jowhar Rasheed Mohammad University of Duhok, College of Engineering, Duhok, Iraq

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.3889/oamjms.2022.8398

Keywords:

Smear layer, SEM, TruNatomy, Wave one gold, S-one plus

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Rotary nickel titanium instrument are an essential part of endodontic treatment, it is important to compare the root canal cleaning ability of these instruments.

AIM: This study aimed to compare the amount of smear and debris layer remained following the use of four rotary instruments with an irrigant solution: TruNatomy (TRN), Protaper Next (PTN), S-One Plus and Wave One Gold (WOG).

METHODS: A total of 80 extracted mandibular premolars were used and decoronated to the cemento-enamel junction. The roots were randomly divided into four groups of 20 specimens each. The roots were instrumented according to the manufacturer’s instructions of each file, the root canals were irrigated with sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), Ethylene-diaminete-traacetic acid (EDTA) and Normal saline with each file use, two grooves were prepared on the buccal and lingual surfaces by disc to facilitate vertical splitting with a chisel. The presence of the smear layer and the debris layer were evaluated under Scanning Electron Microscope.

RESULTS: Trunatomy remove the smear layer substantially better than PTN and S-one Plus. Wave one gold significantly removes smear layer better PTN. The amount of debris remained in TruNatomy group was significantly lower than other groups, all experimental files significantly removes the smear layer and debris layer better in the middle and coronal thirds compared to apical third.

CONCLUSION: TruNatomy showed better cleaning capacity than all other experimental groups and all experimental groups demonstrated better cleanliness at the coronal and middle third of the roots.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

Plum Analytics Artifact Widget Block

References

Tomson PL, Simon SR. Contemporary cleaning and shaping of the root canal system. Prim Dent J. 2016;5(2):46-53. https://doi.org/10.1308/205016816819304196 PMid:28826433 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1308/205016816819304196

El-Kishawi M, Khalaf K. An update on root canal preparation techniques and how to avoid procedural errors in endodontics. Open Dent J. 2021;15:318-24. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210602115010318 DOI: https://doi.org/10.2174/1874210602115010318

Taha NA, Maghaireh GA, El Sadek D, Bagheri R, Al-Omari M. Shaping ability of thermomechanically treated files in simulated S-shaped root canals. Open J Stomatol. 2013;3(7):386-91. https://doi.org/10.4236/ojst.2013.37065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4236/ojst.2013.37065

Shetty S, Hegde MN, Devadiga D. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of greater taper rotary instruments. Res J Pharm Biol Chem Sci. 2013;4:177-87. https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0754.115780 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/2231-0754.115780

Nathani TI, Nathani AI, Pawar AM, Khakiani MI, Ruiz XF, Olivieri JG. Canal transportation and centering ability in long oval canals: A multidimentional analysis. J Endod. 2019;45(10):1242-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.07.007 PMid:31472950 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2019.07.007

Hulsmann M, Peters OA, Dummer PM. Mechanical preparation of root canals: Shaping goals, techniques and means. Endod Top. 2005;10(19):30-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1601-1546.2005.00152.x

Ibrahim S, Bayoumi A, Hassanein E. Comparative analysis of the cleaning ability of single file versus multiple file system (An in vitro study). Egypt Dent J. 2019;65(4):3601-6. https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2019.75978 DOI: https://doi.org/10.21608/edj.2019.75978

Kiran S, Prakash S, Siddharth PR, Saha S, Geojan NE, Ramachandran M. Comparative evaluation of smear layer and debris on the canal walls prepared with a combination of hand and rotary proTaper technique using scanning electron microscope. J Contemp Dent Pract. 2016;17(7):574-81. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1892 PMid:27595725 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-1892

Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE, Mandorah AO. In vitro comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of TruNatomy in single and double curvature canals compared with different nickel-titanium rotary instruments. BMC Oral Health. 2020;20(1):38. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1027-7 PMid:32019522 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-020-1027-7

Ismail AG, Zaazou MH, Galal M, Kamel NO, Nassar MA. Finite element analysis comparing WaveOne gold and ProTaper next endodontic file segments subjected to bending and torsional load. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2019;43:6-11. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0215-6 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0215-6

Adıgüzel M, Capar ID. Comparison of cyclic fatigue resistance of WaveOne and WaveOne gold small, primary, and large instruments. J Endod. 2017;43(4):623-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.021 PMid:28216272 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2016.11.021

Hülsmann M, Rümmelin C, Schäfers F. Root canal cleanliness after preparation with different endodontic handpieces and hand instruments: A comparative SEM investigation. J Endod. 1997;23(5):301-6. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80410-4 PMid:9545932 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(97)80410-4

Poggio C, Dagna A, Chiesa M, Scribante A, Beltrami R, Colombo M. Effects of NiTi rotary and reciprocating instruments on debris and smear layer scores: An SEM evaluation. J Appl Biomater Funct Mater. 2014;12(3):256-62. https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000161 PMid:24425380 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5301/jabfm.5000161

Alakshar A, Saleh AR, Gorduysus MO. Debris and smear layer removal from oval root canals comparing XP-endo finisher, endoactivator, and manual irrigation: A SEM evaluation. Eur J Dent. 2020;14(4):626-33. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1714762 PMid:32777834 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0040-1714762

Roghanizad N, Vatanpour M, Eslami LM, Bahrami H. Comparison of WaveOne and ProTaper universal preparation systems in the amount of smear layer/debris production: An in-vitro SEM study. J Res Dent Maxillofac Sci. 2017;2:33-43. https://doi.org/10.29252/jrdms.2.4.33 DOI: https://doi.org/10.29252/jrdms.2.4.33

Koçak MM, Saglam BC, Türker SA. Smear layer and debris removal following use of waveone and oneshape single-file systems: SEM study. Int J Exp Dent Sci. 2014;3(2):77-83. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1076 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10029-1076

Drukteinis S, Balciuniene I. A scanning electron microscopic study of debris and smear layer remaining following use of AET instruments and K-flexofiles. Stomatologija. 2006;8(3):70-5. PMid:17191061

Gambarini G. Shaping and cleaning the root canal system: A scanning electron microscopic evaluation of a new instrumentation and irrigation technique. J Endod. 1999;25(12):800-3. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80300-8 PMid:10726524 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0099-2399(99)80300-8

Mancini M, Cerroni L, Iorio L, Armellin E, Conte G, Cianconi L. Smear layer removal and canal cleanliness using different irrigation systems (EndoActivator, EndoVac, and passive ultrasonic irrigation): Field emission scanning electron microscopic evaluation in an in vitro study. J Endod. 2013;39(11):1456-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.028 PMid:24139274 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.07.028

Gutmann JL, Saunders WP, Nguyen L, Guo IY, Saunders EM. Ultrasonic root‐end preparation Part 1. SEM analysis. Int Endod J. 1994;27(6):318-24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00276.x PMid:7751066 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00276.x

de Oliveira Kublitski PM, Tomazinho FS, Marques-da-Silva B, dos Santos VR, da Silva WJ, Baratto-Filho F, et al. Cleaning of long oval canals with WaveOne gold system associated with different irrigant agitation protocols. Brazilian J Oral Sci. 2021;21:1-11. https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v21i00.8664013 DOI: https://doi.org/10.20396/bjos.v21i00.8664013

Ahlquist M, Henningsson O, Hultenby K, Ohlin J. The effectiveness of manual and rotary techniques in the cleaning of root canals: A scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J. 2001;34(7):533-7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00429.x PMid:11601771 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2001.00429.x

Arvaniti IS, Khabbaz MG. Influence of root canal taper on its cleanliness: A scanning electron microscopic study. J Endod. 2011;37(6):871-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.025 PMid:21787508 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2011.02.025

Saraf AA, Patil AC, Mangala TM, Mahaparale R, Mali S, Pawar S. Comparison of cleaning effectiveness of single rotary file OneShape and reciprocating F2 protaper with protaper universal sequence: A SEM analysis. J Oral Biol Craniofacial Res. 2020;10(4):337-42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.06.011 PMid:32714786 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobcr.2020.06.011

Jadhav GR, Mittal P, Kulkarni A, Syed S, Bagul R, Elahi S, et al. Comparative evaluation of canal cleaning ability of various rotary endodontic filesin apical third: A scanning electron microscopic study. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2016;13(6):508-14. https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.197031 PMid:28182065 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/1735-3327.197031

van der Vyver PJ, Vorster M, Peters OA. Minimally invasive endodontics using a new single-file rotary system. Int Dent Afr Ed. 2019;9:6-20.

Feghali M, Jabbour E, Koyess E, Sabbagh J. Scanning electron microscopy evaluation of debris and smear layer generated by two instruments used in reciprocating motion WaveOne Gold® and Reciproc Blue®. Aust Endod J. 2019;45(3):388-93. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12338 PMid:30770606 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12338

Al-Khafaji H, Al-Huwaizi H. Cleaning Efficiency of Root Canals using Differ ent Rotary Instrumentation Systems: A Comparative In Vitro Study; 2019. Available from: https://www.ijmrhs.com/abstract/cleaning-efficiency-of-root-canals-using-differ-ent-rotary-instrumentation-systems-a-comparative-in-vitro-study-15506html [Last accessed on 2021 Nov 21].

Ismail AG, Nagy MM, Galal M. Cleaning ability of rotary NiTi systems with different kinematics. Bull Natl Res Cent. 2019;43:197. https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0191-x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s42269-019-0191-x

Webber J. Shaping canals with confidence: WaveOne GOLD single-file. Roots Int Dent Afr Ed. 2015;6:34-40.

Elnaghy AM, Elsaka SE. Assessment of the mechanical properties of ProTaper next nickel-titanium rotary files. J Endod. 2014;40(11):1830-4. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.06.011 PMid:25129026 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2014.06.011

van der Vyver P, Vorster M, Paleker F, de Wet F. Root canal preparation: A literature review and clinical case reports of available materials and techniques. South Afr Dent J. 2019;74:246-54. https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2019/v74no4a4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17159/2519-0105/2019/v74no4a4

Robinson JP, Lumley PJ, Cooper PR, Grover LM, Walmsley AD. Reciprocating root canal technique induces greater debris accumulation than a continuous rotary technique as assessed by 3-dimensional micro-computed tomography. J Endod. 2013;39(8):1067-70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.003 PMid:23880279 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joen.2013.04.003

Vincenzi V, Plotino G, Giansiracusa A, Pietrangeli E, Al Sudani D, Grande NM, et al. A SEM study of canal cleanliness after a new nickel-titanium rotary instrumentation technique. Ann Stomatol (Roma). 2011;2(1-2):19-22. PMid:22238718

Zarei M, Javidi M, Afkhami F, Tanbakuchi B, Zadeh MM, Mohammadi MM. Influence of root canal tapering on smear layer removal. NY State Dent J. 2016;82(3):35-8. PMid:27348950

Andreani Y, Gad BT, Cocks TC, Harrison J, Keresztes ME, Pomfret JK, et al. Comparison of irrigant activation devices and conventional needle irrigation on smear layer and debris removal in curved canals. (Smear layer removal from irrigant activation using SEM). Aust Endod J. 2021;47(2):143-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12482 PMid:33682268 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/aej.12482

Schäfer E, Zapke K. A comparative scanning electron microscopic investigation of the efficacy of manual and automated instrumentation of root canals. J Endod. 2000;26(11):660-4. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200011000-00007 PMid:11469296 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00004770-200011000-00007

Plotino G, Özyürek T, Grande NM, Gündoğar M. Influence of size and taper of basic root canal preparation on root canal cleanliness: A scanning electron microscopy study. Int Endod J. 2019;52(3):343-51. https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13002 PMid:30129186 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/iej.13002