Limits...
Efficacy of Different Techniques for Removing Debris from Endodontic Files Prior to Sterilization.

Nosouhian S, Bajoghli F, Sabouhi M, Barati M, Davoudi A, Sharifipour M - J Int Oral Health (2015)

Bottom Line: Finally, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope, and the data were analyzed by Tuckey, paired t-test, two-way ANOVA tests using SPSS software version 15 at a significant level of 0.05.The amount of remaining debris were significant in the shafts of sizes 15 (P < 0.001) and 25 (P = 0.01).Furthermore, higher amounts of debris were found in the shafts and heads of files with lower sizes (15 and 25).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Implant Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Background: Dental instruments, like endodontic files, are hardly disinfected. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mechanical, chemical, and ultrasonic (in combinations or separately) techniques for removing debris from files, prior to sterilization.

Materials and methods: Totally, 90 new endodontic files with size of 15, 25, and 40 (30 files of each one) were sterilized and one files of each one kept as negative control (NC) group. The rest of files (29 files of each size) were divided into five groups after endodontic therapies and prior to autoclaving: (Positive control [PC]: Without interventions, A: Cleaned with scouring sponge soaked in chlorhexidine 0.2%, B: Stored in Micro 10 enzyme, C: Subjected to Micro 10 enzyme in both conventional and ultrasonic way for 15 min, D: Decontaminated by Micro 10 enzyme with ultrasonic). Finally, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope, and the data were analyzed by Tuckey, paired t-test, two-way ANOVA tests using SPSS software version 15 at a significant level of 0.05.

Results: Significant differences were observed in heads of the files among groups C and PC (P = 0.02), and high amount of debris were seen in the shafts of groups A and D (P < 0.001). The amount of remaining debris were significant in the shafts of sizes 15 (P < 0.001) and 25 (P = 0.01).

Conclusion: Using Micro 10 in both ultrasonic and conventional methods were acceptable for removing debris from the files. Furthermore, higher amounts of debris were found in the shafts and heads of files with lower sizes (15 and 25).

No MeSH data available.


The scores (0-4) based on a percentage of remaining debris under observation of metallographic microscope (×75).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588788&req=5

Figure 1: The scores (0-4) based on a percentage of remaining debris under observation of metallographic microscope (×75).

Mentions: After autoclaving, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope (×75) (Metallographic Laboratory of Sanati Isfahan University). The length of each file presumed as two parts of head and shaft equally from the middle. The files rotated 90° clock-wisely for four times in which all the circumferential of the files surface were observed under the microscope. At the end, scoring was done from 0 to 9 based on remaining residual debris and each file got 8 numbers (scores) (Figures 1 and 2).


Efficacy of Different Techniques for Removing Debris from Endodontic Files Prior to Sterilization.

Nosouhian S, Bajoghli F, Sabouhi M, Barati M, Davoudi A, Sharifipour M - J Int Oral Health (2015)

The scores (0-4) based on a percentage of remaining debris under observation of metallographic microscope (×75).
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588788&req=5

Figure 1: The scores (0-4) based on a percentage of remaining debris under observation of metallographic microscope (×75).
Mentions: After autoclaving, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope (×75) (Metallographic Laboratory of Sanati Isfahan University). The length of each file presumed as two parts of head and shaft equally from the middle. The files rotated 90° clock-wisely for four times in which all the circumferential of the files surface were observed under the microscope. At the end, scoring was done from 0 to 9 based on remaining residual debris and each file got 8 numbers (scores) (Figures 1 and 2).

Bottom Line: Finally, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope, and the data were analyzed by Tuckey, paired t-test, two-way ANOVA tests using SPSS software version 15 at a significant level of 0.05.The amount of remaining debris were significant in the shafts of sizes 15 (P < 0.001) and 25 (P = 0.01).Furthermore, higher amounts of debris were found in the shafts and heads of files with lower sizes (15 and 25).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Assistant Professor, Department of Prosthodontics, Dental Implant Research Center, School of Dentistry, Isfahan University of Medical Sciences, Isfahan, Iran.

ABSTRACT

Background: Dental instruments, like endodontic files, are hardly disinfected. The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of mechanical, chemical, and ultrasonic (in combinations or separately) techniques for removing debris from files, prior to sterilization.

Materials and methods: Totally, 90 new endodontic files with size of 15, 25, and 40 (30 files of each one) were sterilized and one files of each one kept as negative control (NC) group. The rest of files (29 files of each size) were divided into five groups after endodontic therapies and prior to autoclaving: (Positive control [PC]: Without interventions, A: Cleaned with scouring sponge soaked in chlorhexidine 0.2%, B: Stored in Micro 10 enzyme, C: Subjected to Micro 10 enzyme in both conventional and ultrasonic way for 15 min, D: Decontaminated by Micro 10 enzyme with ultrasonic). Finally, the samples were observed under a metallographic microscope, and the data were analyzed by Tuckey, paired t-test, two-way ANOVA tests using SPSS software version 15 at a significant level of 0.05.

Results: Significant differences were observed in heads of the files among groups C and PC (P = 0.02), and high amount of debris were seen in the shafts of groups A and D (P < 0.001). The amount of remaining debris were significant in the shafts of sizes 15 (P < 0.001) and 25 (P = 0.01).

Conclusion: Using Micro 10 in both ultrasonic and conventional methods were acceptable for removing debris from the files. Furthermore, higher amounts of debris were found in the shafts and heads of files with lower sizes (15 and 25).

No MeSH data available.