Clinical Comparison of the Effectiveness of Single-file Reciprocating Systems and Rotary Systems for Removal of Endotoxins and Cultivable Bacteria from Primarily Infected Root Canals

Authors: F. C. Martinho, A. P. M. Gomes, A. M. M. Fernandes, N. S. Ferreira, M. S. Endo, L. F. Freitas, I. C. G. Gamões
Year: 2014
Journal:
Rubrics:
Keywords: bacteria, disinfection, endodontics, endotoxin, root canal

Introduction: This clinical study was conducted to compare the effectiveness of single-file reciprocating systems and rotary systems in removing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals.

Methods: Forty-eight primarily infected root canals were selected and randomly divided into 4 groups: WaveOne (Dentsply Maillefer, Ballaigues, Switzerland) (n = 12); Reciproc (VDW, Munich, Germany) (n = 12), ProTaper (Dentsply Maillefer) (n = 12), and Mtwo (VDW) (n = 12). Samples were collected before and after chemomechanical preparation. The irrigation was performed by using 2.5% sodium hypochlorite. A chromogenic limulus amebocyte lysate assay test was used to quantify endotoxins. Culture techniques were used to determine bacterial colony-forming unit counts.

Results: In the baseline samples (ie, samples collected before chemomechanical preparation), endotoxins and cultivable bacteria were recovered from 100% of the root canal samples. No differences were found in the median percentage values of endotoxin reduction achieved with reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [95.15%] and Reciproc [96.21%]) and with rotary systems (ie, ProTaper [97.98%] and Mtwo  [96.34%]) (P < .05). Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne [99.45%] and Reciproc [99.93%]) and rotary systems (ProTaper [99.85%] and Mtwo  [99.41%]) were effective in reducing the cultivable bacteria (all P < .05). Moreover, the culture analysis revealed no differences in bacterial load reduction (P > .05). Conclusions: Both single-file reciprocating systems (ie, WaveOne and Reciproc  instruments) and rotary systems (ie, ProTaper and Mtwo instruments) showed similar effectiveness in reducing endotoxins and cultivable bacteria from primarily infected root canals, but they were not able to eliminate them from all root canals analyzed. (J Endod 2014;-:1–5)

Link to study: 

Back to list

We are using cookies to give you the best experience on our site. Cookies are files stored in your browser and are used by most websites to help personalize your web experience. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of use, Privacy Policy and Use of Cookies for performance, functionality and advertising.