COMPARISON OF THE AMOUNT OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF BACTERIA FOLLOWING THE USE OF DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES – AN IN VITRO STUDY

Mithra N. Hegde; Snehal Thatte

doi:10.1055/s-0040-1703535

Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU, Inhaltsverzeichnis

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 · Journal of Health and Allied Sciences NU 2011; 01(04): 27-32
DOI: 10.1055/s-0040-1703535

Original Article

COMPARISON OF THE AMOUNT OF APICAL EXTRUSION OF BACTERIA FOLLOWING THE USE OF DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTATION TECHNIQUES – AN IN VITRO STUDY

Autor*innen

Mithra N. Hegde

¹Senior Professor & Head, Dept. of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore - 575 018, India
Snehal Thatte

²Postgraduate student, Dept. of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte University, Mangalore - 575 018, India

Abstract

als PDF herunterladen

Abstract

Objectives: The objective of this study is to compare the amount of extrusion of bacteria beyond the apical foramen after instrumentation with Crown down and Step-back techniques using a manual and engine driven nickel-titanium instruments

Materials and Methods: Seventy-five mandibular premolars with similar dimensions were used for the study. Access cavities prepared and root canals contaminated with a suspension of Enterococcus faecalis. The contaminated teeth were then divided into three experimental groups. Group 1(Crowndown group) divided into two: Group 1–A Hand files: root canals were instrumented using K-files and Group 1B – Rotary files: root canals were instrumented using ProTaper instruments. Group II (Step-back group) divided into two: Group II A– Hand files: root canals were instrumented using K-files and group II B–Rotary files: the root canals were instrumented using Light Speed LSX instruments. Group III (control group): no instrumentation was done.

Bacteria were extruded after preparation were collected into vials, microbiological samples were incubated in culture media for 24hrs. The CFUs were determined for each sample. The data obtained was analyzed using the Kruskal-Wallis one way analysis of variance and Mann-Whitney U-tests.

Result: There was a significant difference in the amount of bacteria extruded by both Crowndown and Step-back. The Step- back hand method extruded significantly more bacteria when compared with Crowndown hand technique.

Conclusion: All instrumentation techniques extruded intracanal bacteria apically. There was a significant difference in both the engine driven instrumentation techniques, while the hand instrumentation by Step-back extruded more bacteria.

Keywords

apical extrusion - bacteria - crowndown - step- back

PDF (76 kb)

Referenzen

References
1 Seltzer S, Naidrof IJ. Flare ups in endodontics: etiological factors. Journal of Endodontics 1985; 11: 472-8.
2 Vande Visse JE, Brilliant JD. Effect of the irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. Journal of Endodontics 1975; 1:243-6
3 Al-omari, Dummer. Canal blockage and debris extrusion with eight preparation techniques. Journal of Endodontics 1995; 21:154–8
4 Engstrom B. The significance of enterococci in root canal treatment. Odontoligisk Revy 1964; 15:87-106
5 Schneider SW. a comparison of canal preparations in straight and curved root canals. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology 32, 271-5.
6 Er K Sumer Z, Akpinar KE. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following use of two engine driven instrumentation techniques. International Endodontic Journal 2005; 38:871-6.
7 Collins CH, Lyne PM, Grange JM 1995 Counting methods. In: Collins CH, Lyne PM, Grange JM, eds. Collins' and Lyne's Microbiological Methods. 7^th edn. Oxford, London: Butterworth Heinemann, pp. 149-62.
8 Maryam Bidar, DDS; Akbar Fallh Rastegar, DDS; Pari Ghaziani, DDS; and M. Sadegh Namazikhah, DMD, MSEd, Evaluation of Apically Extruded Debris in Conventional and Rotary Instrumentation Techniques, September 2004 Vol.32. No.9. CDA. Journal
9 Reddy SA, Hicks ML. Appical extrusion of debris using two hand and two rotary instrumentation techniques. Journal of Endodontics 1998; 24:180-3
10 Beeson T. Hartwell G, Thornton J, Gunsolley J. Comparision of debris extruded apically in straight canals: convention filing versus profile. 04 taper series 29. Journal of Endodontics 1998:24:255-61
11 Ferraz CCR, Gomes NV, Gomes BPFA, Zaia AA, Teixeria FB. Suoza-Filho Nitte University Journal of Health Science NUJHS Vol. I, No.4, December 2011, ISSN 2249-7110 FJ. Apical extrusion of debris and irrigants using two hand and three engine driven instrumentation techniques. International Endodontic Journal 2001;34:354-8
12 Tinaz AC, Alacam T, Uzun O, Maden M, Kayaoglu G. The effect of disruption of apical constriction on periapical extrusion. Journal of Endodontics 2005;31:533-5
13 Fairbourn DR, Mc Walter GM, Montgomery S. The effect of four preparation techniques on the amount of apically extruded debris. Journal of Endodontics 1987;13:102-8
14 Vande Visse JE, Brilliant JD (1975J) Effect of the irrigation on the production of extruded material at the root apex during instrumentation. Journal of Endodontics 1, 243-6.
15 Ajay Logani, Naseom Shah. Apically extruded debris with three contemporary Ni-Ti instrumentation systems: An ex vivo comparative study. Indian J Dent Res 19(3) 2008.
16 Ruiz-Mubard EE, Gutmann JL, Wagner MJ. A quantitative assessment of canal debris forced penapically during root canal instrumentation using two different techniques. J Endodon 1987;12:554-8.
17 A. Kustarci, K. E. Akpinar, Z. Sumer, K. Er and B. Bek. Apical extrusion of intracanal bacteria following the use of various instrumentation techniques. International Endodontic Journal 2008; 41:1066–1071.
18 Siqueira JF, Lima KC, Magalhaes FA, Lopes HP, de Uzeda M 1999 Mechanical reduction of bacterial population in the root canal by three instrumentation techniques. Journal of Endodontics 25, 332-5.
19 Haapasalo M, Ranta H. Ranta KT (1983) Facultative gram negative enteric rods in persistent periapical infections. Acta Odontolgica Scandlnavica 41, 19-22.
20 McCrary BR, Streckfuss JL, Kene HJ (1989) Oral hygiene and the prevalence of oral group D streptococci in medically-physically compromised and periodontal disease patients. Journal of Periodontology 60, 255-8.
21 Rams TE, Feik D. Listgarten MA, Slots J (1992) Enterococci in human periodontitis. Oral Microbiology and Immunology 7. 249-52.
22 Smith CJ, Halpenny MK, Ballagh SJ (1987) Carriage rates of enterococci in the dentinal plaque of haemodialysis patients in Dublin. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 25. 21-33.
23 Sundqvist G, Fidgor D, Persson S. Sjogren U (1998) Microbiologic analysis of teeth with failed endodontic treatment and the outcome of conservative retreatment. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, and Oral Pathology 85. 86-93.
24 Siqueira JF, Rocas IN (2004) Polymerase chain reaction-based analysis of microorganisms associated with failed endodontic treatment. Oral Surgery. Oral Medicine, Oral Patholology. Oral Radiology and Endodontics 97, 85-94.